Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Arlington house 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Arlington house explosion

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Likely not notable under

WP:NEWSEVENT

. To quickly overview the criteria (as stated on the talk page of the article):

An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. While it is too early to tell for certain, there is no reason to believe that this event serves as a catalyst for anything broader.
Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. The effect of this event is localized to one block of one neighborhood, plus those nearby who heard and felt the explosion.
An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. Though many outlets covered this story, much of the coverage is limited to a discussion of the events themselves and subsequent law enforcement updates on the status of the investigation, or to the social media posts of the homeowner claiming various conspiracies. Some other stories focus specifically on the neighbors, but that is largely the extent of any coverage.
Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. Virtually all articles related to this story were published within three days of the event itself.
Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. Although many national and international outlets covered the event, these largely followed the pattern of simply restating events according to investigators and eyewitnesses as they occurred. Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 14:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I live in Arlington and haven't seen the explosion mentioned in the local media since a week after the event, so I'll be surprised if it's endured in coverage further afield. I'm unaware of any enduring newsworthiness of this event. Largoplazo (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator here adding to echo your sentiments; I am also very local to where this occurred. It was a big interest story for a couple of days but died down in discussion within a couple of weeks at most. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 18:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Conspiracy theorist's house exploded" is a bit of a stretch for notability. Replace it with "insurance agent's house exploded" and it's non-notable. I don't think just because the person was controversial makes this a notable event. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It there was perhaps more about the conspiracy theorist as a person, they might get an article. That's for another day I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With discussing it on the talk page, I agree this doesn't meet the threshold of significance beyond the news cycle. There's been no substantive coverage since, especially since the perp is deceased so you're not likely to even get legal proceeding coverage. There's not really any appropriate place for a merge or alternative. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Singular casualty toll and absence of follow up information. Borgenland (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it fits notability. It should have been on wikinews. --evrik ^(talk) 18:45, 21 February 2024 (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.