Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Florida wildfires

2023 Florida wildfires

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

2023 Florida wildfires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Per IP request: I am nominating this article for deletion because a WP:BEFORE search found exactly one source - [1], not enough to meet GNG and therefore non-notable. 166.198.251.71 (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC) submitted on behalf of stated IP by UtherSRG (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, Lists, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Well, here's the Miami Herald in April talking about the many fires to date and prospects for the rest of the year. That would seem to count as a source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Two sources still is not enough. 166.198.251.71 (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, you PROD this initially with WP:PERMASTUB which I don't agree with because the essay states that stubs are fine to have even if they never expand. – The Grid (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Here's a third, a predictive one about the upcoming year posted by Fox Weather at the end of 2022. That makes three. Does that meet your secret magic number? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  while 3 sources describing the impacts is enough, that source does not provide any notability for the topic since it’s before any wildfires. Still not meeting GNG.166.198.251.71 (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  That seems an odd requirement to stick on it. We have articles on elections that have not yet occurred, Olympics that are merely planned. Predictive sources focused on a topic seem indeed relevant to notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep — Based on WP:NEXIST rational. Similar situation to 1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake, which passed AfD with 2 sentences and no in-line references under NEXIST (Has since been improved - version that passed AfD). That’s not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but rather showing a confirmation that NEXIST is a 100% valid argument. Here are sources related to this article based on a single google search:

1. WGCU
2. WGCU
3. National Park Service
4. WINK
5. NBC-2
6. WLNR
7. WLNR

So, sources exist for this article, despite the article not being in good condition. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - Sufficient sources listed on this page to meet WP:GNG. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  6 of those are for only the Sandy Fire, so the scope could be refocused.166.198.251.71 (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Sandy fire may (or may not) be deserving its own page, but we have multiple reliable sources looking at the year as a whole, so that deserves a page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hm, we do seem to be at that magic number of 3, so there might be enough notability to keep.--166.198.251.71 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: and expand. News coverage is more than sufficient to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 15:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per others. There is definitely significant coverage on the fires. Conyo14 (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)