Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Peachland wildfire

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. The consensus is clearly to delete without a redirect. Incidentally, I fully endorse the way Ravendrop handled the PROD--I do them the same way DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Peachland wildfire

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

Non-notable fire of the type that commonly occur in B.C. every year. It was one of 1,644 fires that year and was small at 200 hectares (of 102,000+ hectares). Despite an evacuation order, no lasting coverage or impact. There were some short stories written at the time of the fire, but they are all WP:ROUTINE. PROD removed by creator. Ravendrop 03:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravendrop: since you see fit to mention the fact that I removed the prod-tag, let me explain. WP:Prod says: "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion." This article was rated high-importance by several WikiProjects, so obviously the deletion is not uncontroversial. Your PROD cost unnecessary wikipedia resources and should have been avoided. Just my $.02. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawahitech: Please note that by mentioning that you removed the PROD in the deletion summary was, and is, in no way an attack on you. It is simply something I do for any article I list at AfD after a PROD has been contested for completeness, to demonstrate that the deletion is, potentially, disputed and, if the user who removes the PROD mentions one, I include their reason for removing the PROD too. As for the project ratings, they have very little bearing on a deletion. These assessments are essentially the opinion of one person and in a narrowly defined topic/notability guidelines as opposed to the general guidelines that all pages must adhere to. Finally, a PROD is a single, templated, edit and is incredibly "cheap". It is far less "expensive" than an AfD or having a page on a non-notable topic.

Delete - article makes no assertion of notability (are natural disasters covered under A7/event?) and seems only routine news coverage with no lasting impact. Ansh6 6 6 06:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine coverage of an event. Nothing to show this as notable. Seems more news coverage than anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of wildfires (and check Talk:2012 Peachland wildfire). XOttawahitech (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not convinced that it even deserves to be mentioned on that page as it is a list of notable wildfires, not all wildfires ever. It appears that inclusion on that page is being notable enough to have its own wikipedia page. I'm also not convinced that it would be worthy of a mention on List of wildfires of British Columbia if it existed, as suggested below. Ravendrop 05:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ravendrop's analysis. This is a run of the mill wildfire, not notable in terms of size, resources deployed, or damage done. This would warrant a mention in List of wildfires of British Columbia, if it existed. Hmm... The Interior (Talk) 02:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravendrop's analysis. No significant coverage exists. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:10, 17 September 2013 (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.