Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Car fire

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 of the debate was delete without prejudice, of course. Anyone improving this article would probably be starting from scratch anyway. W.marsh 13:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Car fire

insufficient importance of specific subject matter Travelbird 23:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete despite this vital information: A car could also catch fire by being close to a conflagration outside of the vehicle. Cars have caught fire when exposed to hot lava. Artw 23:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's not very well written, leaves off important information such as the dangers of the fuel combusting and how vehicle fires are fought and would probably be better handled as a heading on another page. Ace of Sevens 23:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OH, for crying out loud! I only created the damn thing because the Fire Portal suggested it be created! If you don't like what's in the article. CHANGE IT. Don't delete it because it is not up to "Featured Article" standards. Philistines. --ttogreh 01:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There don't seem to be articles for subjects like building fire or specific types of fire except forest fire. I can see this maybe being viable if lots of sister articles are created and it's put under something like Vehicle fire, but it's weird to have this by itself. This is ignoring the need for a rewrite. Ace of Sevens 02:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Here's an idea. No matter how "in demand" other articles are, people should stick to writing about subjects they know about. A bad article is not better than no article at all. -- GWO

I disagree. It is much easier to change something that is in extant than to make a new thing from whole cloth. I just wrote two paragraphs off of the top of my head. I am sure, with a little effort, those paragraphs could be improved or replaced with something better. However, if no record of them exists because of a deletion by haughty philistines, we run the risk of repeating the creation of a poor article.--ttogreh 18:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, we shouldn't delete an article that others think is poor, because it might lead to another poor article? Circular reasoning. Grandmasterka 23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not circular reasoning; it is a statement of fact. An article with encyclopedic value should be improved, not deleted. An article that is nothing but original research, gibberish, and profanity, fine. Delete that. An article that is poorly written but is nothing but facts and relevant information... fix it. Is this too hard of a concept to grasp, or are you just a jerk?--ttogreh 00:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Beyond the personal attacks, even if it does deserve an article, it's in the wrong namespace, so why not delete and (if necessary) recreate in the correct place? Ace of Sevens 01:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks? I have never met any of you people. I am using caustic rhetoric. Besides, Grandmasterka's passive-aggressive allusion to me using tautology is less offensive than me calling him on it? What a load of tripe. Oh, and it appears you have given up your vote for deletion in the face of cold hard facts; car fires are a subject worthy of an entry. Now, it appears you are trying to salvage your pride by calling for an renaming of the entry. Fine, whatever. Call it a "vehicle fire". Delete my paragraphs, and substitute your own. I don't care. Car fires are not unworthy of encyclopedic mention. Do you remember some rioting in Paris a while back? Say, what kinds of fires were there a lot of?--ttogreh 08:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. This does seem to be an okay start to the article. I could see plenty of room for expansion with statistics, notable occurrences, etc. Also, there's no need to call everyone a "philistine"; of course they don't want it deleted because it's "not a featured article". Assume good faith. Maybe the article should be moved to vehicle fire? Grandmasterka 08:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, there is indeed a need to call the act of a philistine; the deletion of a nascent article due to its poor writing rather than its encyclopedic value, as the act of a philistine.--ttogreh 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Seem like an encyclopedic topic to me, and as it currently stands it makes an acceptable stub - it will get improved. I like Grandmasterka's rename suggestion too. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not important, just succession of bad examples. ("People eat meals on tables. At breakfast, there may also be newspapers on the table. They also play board games on them, or just sit around them and talk. Tables sometimes catch on fire if they are hit by lightning or being transported in a car.") —Centrx→talk • 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You sir, are more interested in destruction than creation. It is better, to you, to obliterate something than to improve it. You are a philistine.--ttogreh 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wren did not build St Paul's Cathedral by renovating the hovel that originally stood there. He knocked the damn thing down and started again. What a Philistine. -- GWO

Oh, look, an analogy!, I love these, because when someone uses them, I can so very easily point out the fact that it does not apply to the discussion at hand. Tell me, is St. Paul's Cathedral made out electromagnetic ones and zeroes on a computer server? No? Then STFU. Building construction REQUIRES destruction for creation to take place; be it the pristine landscape or an older pipe that needs to be replaced. An Encyclopedia on the internet does NOT require the same kind of destruction; paragraphs can be deleted, but the base, the actual article with its entire history... that remains.--ttogreh 15:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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.