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 delete. Consensus is that this is a routine news story, which we do not cover as an article unless it generates really lasting coverage.  Sandstein  16:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Helensburgh fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

House fire being treated as murder. These occur often enough to be non-notable unless there are special circumstances. No such circumstances are cited here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three deaths in an apparent murder in a house fire isn't that common, thank goodness. PatGallacher (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as patgallacher says thee deaths in an housefire and supposed murder.. not that usual. I say keep for now and re-evaluate when some time has flown by.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but consider recreating in Wikinews. Sad event, but nowhere near the level of coverage needed in WP:EVENT. If the media coverage persists, the article can be restored, but we don't normally keep articles on news events simply because they might become notable later. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is that it is notable now... but I dont have a magic ball so cant say anything about the future.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. As far as Wikipedia's notability standards are concerned, a news event is notable either permanently or not at all. News events are very rarely notable on a the basis on a day or two's news coverage (and certainly not when it's only coverage in local papers). Where news events are considered notable within a day or two of its occurrence, it is normally because the event is of such monumental significance that it is clear that it will continue to have enduring coverage long after the event. In this case, we don't know whether the news event will have lasting coverage, and if we don't know, the event is not considered notable until and if it meets this notability threshold. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I ask again, what is the harm in not deleting this article and assume good faith when users want it to stay.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that, in every deletion discussion where someone disagrees with established precedent, it always comes down to "what's the harm in keeping it?"--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - tragic, yes. But we don't have articles on every crime committed at every scale. 3 deaths is indeed horrific, but that does not give this automatic notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So at which death rate is a subject notable? is 3 deaths less notable than 5.. is 100 less notable than a 1000 is 1000 less notable than 3000 etc etc??.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no perfect line. But have you noticed that wikipedia doesn't have any entry for every time someone, or even 3 or 4 people get killed. These do get coverage...murders always do. But there's a reason why we have WP:EVENT!--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not encyclopedic. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How? explain..--BabbaQ (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable Naomib1996 (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How? explain...--BabbaQ (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: No one saying delete has given a good enough reason yet in my opinion. I would like to sum it up as for now it has sufficient sourcing, it is notable per high amount of media coverage with reliable sourcing. In case that its not notable in 6months which I doubt lets return with a new AfD then. Its way to early and becomes crystal ball thinking if we should go into speculations about future non-notability or notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:EVENT!!!!!!!!--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm afraid you've misunderstood WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NTEMP. If it's unclear whether a news event will be notable in the future then it is not notable now (at least not for Wikipedia - Wikinews may be a different matter). That is a long-established precedent which is highly unlikely to change. It's all very well saying "it doesn't do any harm" until you consider the finite pool of volunteers who monitor articles once they've been created. It is not possible to supervise articles on every news story in every single paper in the world, and unsupervised articles become targets for subsequent conjecture and misinformation. That's why news stories need to be something more than a couple of days' attention in the local papers, otherwise it would be unmanageable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. This tragedy deserves the news coverage it is receiving in the press, but since Wikipedia is not a newspaper, this doesn't belong here. Try Wikinews. Fails WP:EVENT. BusterD (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2011 (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.