Talk:2023 Hanoi building fire

Are there any objections to removing the Notability tag?

As the article is about to be posted to WP:ITN with unanimous support, and has a wide array of sources from international media (BBC, Al Jazeera) to local news, it seemed a bit surprising that removing the Template:Notability tag was a controversial action, and I'll be happy to hear more of the community's input about this! Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Nythar, @thebiguglyalien and @Gianluigi02 as you were the folks involved in removing/adding the notability tag. Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Notability requires secondary sources, of which this article has none. Alternatively, it needs to meet the requirements of WP:EVENTCRIT, which it does not. Tags should not be removed until the underlying issue is resolved. If this is a notable subject, nothing in the article indicates it as such. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The article currently has the following sources (all secondary) from major international media (on top of many more Vietnamese regional sources):

• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66794751
• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/13/many-killed-in-huge-fire-at-apartment-block-in-vietnams-hanoi
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/13/vietnam-apartment-fire-hanoi-deaths
• https://apnews.com/article/apartment-fire-hanoi-vietnam-deadly-8db1a0259a5bfe4ccae7422e6aaa34f1
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/13/world/asia/fire-vietnam-hanoi-apartment.html
• https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/13/asia/vietnam-hanoi-apartment-fire-intl-hnk/index.html

I genuinely don't see why you are saying these sources don't exist? Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby Those are in no way secondary sources. News reports are primary sources. That's not really up for debate in the study of historiography. Or on Wikipedia for that matter: per WP:RSBREAKING, All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Please read what you quote before you attempt to quote it. That policy is about breaking news specifically, not about all news reports. From WP:PRIMARY, Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Which is the case for breaking news specifically, as they are directly reporting informations from the source often verbatim, but not for news reports like the ones above, which are the vast majority of secondary sources used for recent events.

We don't need a historiographical account of an event to be written 10 years later before we can write an article on it. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYNEWS might help clarify things. In short, we don't need a 10 year historiographical account, but we do need some form of historiographical account. The current sources do not meet that requirement, as they do not analyze primary sources. Right now, it's just a news story with no long term effects, which is explicitly not what Wikipedia is for. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Also, the lack of long term effects in itself does not mean a lack of notability. There's a wide gap between WP:NOTNEWS (which is intended against coverage of routine events like celebrity gossip) and only having articles with a massive historical impact.

On the same topic, we have an article about the Ho Chi Minh City ITC fire - do people still think about it 20 years later? No, but that doesn't mean it wasn't notable. That holds for 99% of Wikipedia articles - only a tiny fraction of our 6,714,744 articles will be on events with a long-term historical impact, and, for many (most) of them, it is better to have an article with sources that can be debated as being primary vs secondary than no article at all. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

If you want to nominate the article for deletion on the grounds that it isn't notable, go ahead (I believe the discussion might be interesting), but I strongly doubt you'd have consensus. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Template

As it might be helpfull, I started a draft for a navigational template. See Draft:Template:Fires in Vietnam. 109.37.149.106 (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Rename the article to "2023 Hanoi microapartment fire"?

In Vietnam, the accident is recognized as the "mini apartment" fire. I think that the term "building fire" is too generic since there are of courses dozens of "building fire" in Hanoi 2023, and changing the title to "microapartment" would make the accident more recognizable on Wikipedia.  Hwi.padam   18:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate article titles that are more descriptive. In this instance, is "microapartment" the best article title? It seems given the nature of the fire, this one stands out from other fires in Vietnam given the circumstances and impact. How about changing the article to "apartment fire" to better differentiate this fire from others. Jurisdicta (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that "apartment" fire is relatively popular that it doesn't really differentiate the fire from the other. However, the Vietnamese public has been concentrated in controversies around the mini/microapartment keyword so I think that 'microapartment' would be the best keyword addressing this fire.  Hwi.padam   02:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification and your suggestion makes sense given the context. I would support the change to "2023 Hanoi microapartment fire". Jurisdicta (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)