Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucharest maternity hospital 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. Going with consensus, but I'm pretty sure, as many have pointed out, that if this had happened in the USA we wouldn't be having this AfD. Perhaps someone ought to write an article on the hospital. I might even try it myself, though someone with local knowledge would probably be better. Note: I have userfied to User:Black Kite/Bucharest. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bucharest maternity hospital explosion

Bucharest maternity hospital explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Contested PROD on the (frankly bizarre) grounds that the event would be considered notable if it happened in an English-speaking country. Sorry, but, while tragic, there is no lasting significance to this event and

• Delete
  WP:NOTNEWS and all that. Simply not notable in the long run. —fetch·comms 02:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as
  Wikipedia is not a place for news reports, there is no evidence, that it will a lasting impact. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• support deletion per above, not notable.(Lihaas (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC));[reply]
• Strong Keep - notability exists. Death toll rises to 4, and others 7 babies are critically injured. An explosion do not happened every day in a hospital. (Press Association via Irish Independent) (Voice of Russia) (Sky News) (CNN) - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few short newspaper articles that have all been taken from the UKPA or the PA (or perhaps AFP or Reuters) do not indicate notability. Not everything in the headlines is worthy of an encyclopaedia article. Notability requires ongoing coverage, not just a short flurry. Have a look at

WP:GNG. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The existence of a language barrier (can ANYBODY on this page actually search for relevant ROMANIAN sources?

2010 Algeria earthquake had several sources in French establishing its notability.) does not make this non-notable. If anything, it should make us more wary of deleting it! Circéus (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, no way anyone is going to be looking this up in a year or two's time. Sad, but no long-term notability. Modest Genius ^talk 15:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS.tragic but not significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete,
  talk) 17:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep I tend to agree with the not-so-bizarre observation that this would be getting much more news coverage if it had happened in the U.S. or the U.K.; as Eugen Simion notes, explosions aren't something that one would (or should) expect in a hospital. On the other hand, I'd also tend to agree with Modest's observation that there's "no way anyone is going to be looking this up in a year or two's time"; In general, people do not want to be reminded about tragedies that involve children, no matter where they happen. A perfect example of that is the Bath School disaster, which most people have probably never heard of, although it happened in Michigan; a more recent example is the Dunsblane killing, which makes me sick to even think about. I believe, however, that this will prove to be more than yesterday's news, because there's already an international response to the severely injured victims [1] [2]. People may disagree on whether this is notable enough for Wikipedia; I think we're all in agreement that it's horrific. Mandsford 13:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment (leaning towards keep as it is much too early for a certain delete). No evidence that it would have lasting significance but then this is hardly surprising considering the AfD was opened 58 minutes after creation during which time it was prodded and the prod endorsed as well - What was the rush? A fatal explosion anywhere hardly merits immediate deletion, never mind one in maternity hospital, a location that to the best of my knowledge does not regularly feature fatal explosions. There was no time to allow the article to be developed beyond one sentence and who knows, perhaps editors were put off by thinking it was heading for deletion so didn't attempt to expand it after the 58 minutes. "No way anyone is going to be looking this up in a year or two's time" - but can this be known with such certainty at this stage? I wouldn't think of looking up "Bath School disaster" or "Dunsblane killing" but I respect that there are people who would, especially if it happened in their country, I doubt likewise that this will be quickly forgotten in Romania whatever about anywhere else - at the very least I cannot be certain it will and am less certain due to the unusual nature of the event. "Dead babies sell newspapers" - true but now several days later it is easier to see that there are follow-up reports that have expanded on the original event when the sensational initial attention-grabbing headlines of "babies blown up in hospital" designed to grab the reader's attention are no longer as easily applicable. Sky News and CNN both report on the death of a fourth baby, an investigation has been launched, the Romanian press has criticised the response, prosecutors want to question 15 staff, etc. Today's update from CNN says the managers have been suspended, the country's health minister has considered resigning, government compensation details, and changes to prevent similar happening again. Then doctors are being brought in from Israel to treat the injured and there is a "public outrage" according to an Australian source. Hardly a "short flurry"... did anyone Google this? Considering this happened in Romania the coverage after several days in the English-language media of the U.S., UK and Australia is quite detailed. Euronews reports on the inquiry. As does Sofia Echo. "One of the darkest tragedies in the history of the Romanian healthcare system", reports Press TV, according to the Romanian health minister. --
  •wicke 03:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment - number of victims rises to 5.- Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:PERSISTENCE, which provides that "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable", and that "further analysis or discussion" are needed to establish notability. Of course, it's too early for those; should they happen, we can recreate at a later date. In response to Circeus' request: sure, every one of the leading Romanian newspapers has covered this since it happened; here's one article from each of them: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. That's to be expected: the press reports the news. That doesn't automatically make the news encyclopedically notable, and I believe that has not yet been shown to be the case here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename and refocus as Giulesti Maternity Hospital - the hospital is notable enough, surely? In a sense this already is our article on the hospital, albeit with disproportionate attention to the explosion admittedly. Stating that the explosion is non-notable is missing the point - in an actual "hospital article", of course we'd include substantial content about such an incident. So what's the benefit of deleting this content? This just a name-change away from being a poor article on a notable hospital that needs editorial work (which we'd certainly keep). TheGrappler (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as sad as this is, sorry but
  WP:NOTNEWS, happy to see a Giulesti Maternity Hospital article where this would get a mention, but don't see this as a good starting point for such an article. Would hope that closing admin (if it is deleted) would allow useification if asked, so as to help with such a article. Codf1977 (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2010 (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.