Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Eastern New South Wales bushfires

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 no consensus. Moved to

A minor and typical event that occured in Australia this year, wikipedia is not wikinews. For people not familiar with the fire situation in Australia, today there are over 100 fires in Victoria, a couple in New South Wales and Tasmania, and 38 in South Australia. I have added details of the fire to the towns were houses were lost. Delete --

• Keep - The article needs some improvements and should be in Wikipedia since it was a event caused by drought and something that doesn't happen in September in that area of New South Wales. -- Bidgee 04:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Its stubby, but stubbiness does not mean it is not notable. Natural disasters ARE notable, consider:
  Ash_Wednesday_fires for relevent similar articles. --Jayron32 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This event is not comparable to any of those 7 houses and 1 death is not the same as 75 deaths and over 2000 homes as was the case at Ash Wednesday.--
    Peta 05:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Nothing is comparable with any natural disasters as there all different. -- Bidgee 05:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• In this case I vote delete, but what would people think about
  2006-07 Australian bushfire season or 2006 Australian weather incidents? -- Chuq 05:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I would support moving it to
  2006-07 Australian bushfire season since other fires could be covered without needing there own page if there not notable to have there own page. -- Bidgee 05:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Wikipedia is not Wikinews and this article does little to distinguish it from any other fire. Unencyclopaedic. GassyGuy 06:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I support the idea of having a bushfire season article. Notable fires could then have tyheir own articles as required. It is analogous to hurricane seasons. B.d.mills 06:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With so many fires a year, this would not be as straight forward as the cyclone articles. --
    Peta 06:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • How about if only fires that have the S44 (not sure what there call it in other states), damage or lost homes, burnt a large area (Say over 300ha) can only be added so it doesn't get to big unlike Tornadoes of 2006? -- Bidgee 06:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• move and edit in accordance with Chuq's proposal. This is a nice Wikinews article, but seriously, S44 declarations are made most weeks of summer in NSW, and the equivalent in other states. The Bureau notice is boilerplate text, and the RFS reference has already gone from their website. An article like
  2006-07 Australian bushfire season can include an intro that talks about the unusual dry hot conditions that led to the early start to bushfire season. Even that topic will be hard to keep up to date - there have been several fires large enough for mention in SA, Tas and Vic this week, too. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete this article about not unusually significant bushfires. The season articles suggested by Chuq could work. JPD (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this seems to me to be an exceptionally early bushfire season - it is not yet summer. Perhaps rename to wider geographical region.--
  talk 01:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • For clarification, are you suggesting that it be kept as an article about the season as a whole? My delete was for the current article about the early bushfires which probably won't be anything like the most significant bushfires this season, but as I said, I have no objection to the creation of a more general article. JPD (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A move to a 2006-07 bushfire season which I suspect will be large. There is a similar declaration in place for this weekend and September was rather early for bushfires. However, I think that these fires were not notable enough to warrant an article rather than part of an article. It is similar to a tropical storm in the relevant hurricane articles. Capitalistroadster 03:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Totally non notable. An individual fire/group of fires would have to do far more damage to be notable. --Michael Johnson 04:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and edit as per
  JROBBO 05:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply
  ]
  • "Best" was a really bad choice of word here! --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Chuq's idea of creating an article for the whole bushfire season has merit though. --Richmeister 04:28, 17 October 2006 (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.