Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 India factory explosion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 16:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 India factory explosion

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable event; WP:NOT#NEWS. Lupo 08:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - an admin needs to talk to this user about his constant creation of low-quality news articles on Wikipedia. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Carrite. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Qworty (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More than 50 people being killed in an industrial accident makes an event historic. This is an extremely terrible one-line stub, but neither is it the sort of "Car crash kills 5" or "Policeman shoots burglar" mundane news that NOTNEWS is meant to deter. Historians of industrial safety (and students doing research on such matters) deal with just this sort of Really Big incident. This does need to be renamed if kept. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HERE IS COVERAGE in the Times of India about the 2012 Sivakasi fireworks factory explosion. Carrite (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And HERE is your evidence of continuing coverage, the report in the same source of the arrest of six people in connection with the incident. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This September 2012 blast was a major event, as evidenced by THIS coverage by BBC India. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing coverage BY BBC INDIA notes that Sikivasi is regarded as the fireworks capital of India, with 22 others killed before the September 5 fire. The industry there is the subject of substantial coverage due in large part to the blast. This is indicative of lasting historical importance to the incident. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this event had international ramifications, as indicated by THIS COVERAGE on the website of the New York Times in the aftermath of the explosion. I am just scratching the surface here, this could be a really good article if one or two people spent a few hours on it. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that reasoning. I still think it fails our inclusion criteria for events. Mentioning this accident in an article about the fireworks industry in India would be certainly OK. But a stand-alone article doesn't make much sense. Where's the lasting effect, where the historical significance? If it has these, then it could be explained in context in Fireworks industry of India. I don't think an accident where more than 50 people were killed automatically made the event historic. News coverage alone doesn't make an event historic, either. Now, if that news reporting on the event, or grassroots lobbying spurred by the event, or some such, led to some lasting changes, then it might turn out to have been a historic event. Right now, it is tragic, certainly, but historic, no. But if you can improve the article, work out its historic-ness (besides just having been a major fire with many deaths), go for it. Lupo 17:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and I'll say what everyone else is thinking: had this happened in the US / UK / Australia we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact that it has not been covered in as many news sources as would have been the case if this had happened in upstate New York doesn't make this event less notable, in my opinion. Yes, we require reliable sources to verify that it happened but we have those. The unfortunate reality is that in some countries, life is cheap. I'm from Australia where a few years ago, three people dying in a fireworks explosion made the news for a week. In Chile, 30 trapped miners had the world glued to their televisions for the better part of a month. The 2005 London bombings killed 52 people - it has a 70,000 character article here and various national memorials. A single explosion in India kills 54 people and there's so little coverage that we're seriously considering deleting the article (and I'm not in any way holding the nominator responsible for that). I'm not trying to WP:OTHERSTUFF this AFD away... I'm just saying. Humans suck sometimes. Stalwart111 00:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "had this happened in the US / UK / Australia we wouldn't be having this discussion" -- I don't think it's a question of Anglo- or Euro- or whatever -centrism. It's a question what is encyclopedic. In my eyes this isn't. Incidentally, I also think that, just for example, Sierre coach crash (Switzerland) or World Wide Tours bus crash (NYC) are not encyclopedic. Both events had no lasting effect at all. Both articles have only one topical incoming link; both suffer from recentism (present tense in an article is a good indicator), both have seen substantial edits only for a short while after the event. Then the interest in the topic waned to zero: it was no longer in the news headlines, and thus people lost interest. (Which, BTW, is clearly not because the articles were so good that they didn't need improvement anymore. Sierre coach crash is utterly lacking and incomplete in its "Reactions" section: no mention of the shock this caused in both Switzerland and Belgium, no mention of the funerals, no mention that members of the Swiss government attended at the funerary services in Belgium,...) Both were clearly newsworthy events, but neither is encyclopedic. And stuffing the articles with more news items won't make them so, unless it turns out that the event caused something of greater significance beyond the immediate context of the event itself. So far, this hasn't happened for either event, and I don't see it happening for this fireworks factory explosion either. If it does, then it may be the time to reconsider writing an encyclopedia article about it. Lupo 18:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yours is an entirely justified and reasonable position. You shouldn't in any way be held responsible for the wider failings of humankind. But how sad is it that the horrific deaths of 54 people prompt so little response that such an event could be considered not sufficiently encyclopaedic. I suppose my broader point was that in "Western" countries, such an event would have prompted inquests from coroners, police investigations, criminal/civil charges and possible legislative changes, thus ensuring WP:EFFECT is easily met. In this case, a handful of people were arrested (maybe, it's unclear) but media outlets can't even agree on how many people died - I've seen everything from 30 to 60. Anyway, I might try and do some work on the article itself. Please don't view my comments as a criticism of you - you've done your job as an editor and then provided comprehensive explanation to back it up. Stalwart111 22:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I had a crack at fixing the article - added some references, info, links, etc. I also de-merged most of the corresponding section at Sivakasi (the town) which was mostly based on initial reports anyway. Stalwart111 23:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the article has now been substantially expanded with the sources provided by Carrite above and others. I'm pleased to be able to report that local authorities have ordered and inquiry and there have been arrests and both have been reported on. I feel confident that while we may not have seen the whole long-term effect of the incident, the coverage found substantiates that this has been treated as more than a one-day news story. That doesn't invalidate Lupo's comments above (in any way) but I have had may faith in humanity restored just a little bit. Stalwart111 00:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there was an article on Fireworks Industry in Sivakasi, then this event should have been noted using 2-5 sentences there. Not notable enough event for a separate page in Wikipedia.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has encyclopedic information, with reliable sources of a tragedy where several lives (mostly children) lost. Rayabhari (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to a more specific name. This article might have problems but that are not suitable grounds for deletion. This is a notable accident. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 18:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such a move has been suggested on the article's talk page but I suggested we wait until this AFD has been concluded. Stalwart111 23:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If this was an American incident, we'd never even get one delete vote. Its a notable tragedy. Coverage meets WP:GNG--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.