Talk:2013 Philadelphia building collapse

Photo of the Aftermath

I took a photo of the rescue operations at 3:42 on the afternoon of the collapse. I uploaded it to Wikimedia at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/BuildingCollapse5Jun2013Philadelphia.jpeg . I'd like to see it added to the article. TypoBoy (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you use the file upload wizard? Because you have to complete the licensing information before the image will be available for use. I looked for it and couldn't find it on Wikimedia Commons. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 12:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

TypoBoy added it to the article. It was broken but I fixed it. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. I just uploaded a cropped version (completing the licensing info this time!), and replaced it with that. Also undid the vandalism helpfully supplied by the jackhole below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TypoBoy (talk • contribs)

Perpetrators?

Islamist terrorists did it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.5.67 (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• And do you have any evidence for that, or did you pull that accusation from where sun doesn't shine? (Wikipedia content needs to be verifiable by means of reliable sources.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There is certainly no direct evidence, or "terrorists did it" might have been a joke, but there has been a pattern of unfortunate accidents and crimes without motives that make sense recently, so it might be prudent to investigate if an attack could have been staged to look like it was a result of an operator under the influence of drugs, or if there are similar incidents elsewhere before. There is a difference in stating that there is no evidence to prove this was an attack and that it is a plausible possibility it could have been an attack. For example in the Jerusalem bulldozer attack a heavy equipment operator started running into buildings and cars and killing people which could be reasonably be interpreted as a terrorist attack. However since the suspect's family believed that he simply went berserk, and was a criminal, not a terrorist, the matter has not been settled as to his motive. Redhanker (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"Two-story building"

The Salvation Army store occupied the first floor and basement of a one-story building on the corner. I think some of the reportage is calling it a "two-story building", and that made it into the article. I changed that, but haven't run down a citation for the change.

Here's a Google Maps link that shows the building before the collapse: http://goo.gl/maps/pDmM0 . So it's clear that it's a one-story building. Is this piece of information a big enough deal to need a citation? That shouldn't be hard to run down. Anyway, it's surely better to have the right info with a "citation needed" tag than to have properly-cited misinformation. (Right?) TypoBoy (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

AfD or merge?

I have serious doubts about the notability of this article. Construction and demolition incidents occur on a regular basis. Although the small death toll is regrettable, it is not exceptional. There is no indication that anything WP:LASTING will come of this event, and it is another case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The article should either be deleted in its entirety or, at best, added as a section of an existing article, much like Grocon#Swanston St wall incident. Before moving in either of those directions, I would be interested in how other editors see the future of this article. WWGB (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been helping with clean up of the article, but I have to agree that it is probably not encyclopedic in the long term. Have no clue where to move it to, so I'd say AFD is in the future. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 02:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The event is notable in the fact that the victims were citizens going about their daily business. Workers are frequently injured or killed in accidents, but not bystanders on an adjacent property. Ultimately, the public response and the extent of the criminal charges will determine notability and that is still playing out. Laughing man6 (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Is just six killed and 14 injured not enough? This mishaps rarely happen in America... many in third world countries happen. This is why it is worthy here. Maybe Philly should be in the title, like I had it originally. Kennvido (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So where are the articles on Six Israelis killed, 15 hurt in traffic accident near Haifa and Six youths killed in country car crash and At least six killed as buildings collapse in Rio de Janeiro etc? I think we are seeing Wikipedia:Geographic imbalance in this article. WWGB (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You veered off course to try to prove a point. I stayed on point. It seemed that if more were killed or injured at this tragedy, this article could be valid to stay on Wiki. We are talking about structure collapse in America. Not a traffic accident in Israel, car washes, or Brazil. We are talking about the much higher standards and building codes in America. So, when comparing please say on task and don't compare apples to oranges. Now, if you want to enter the accident, or Brazil, or the car wash...I'll support you... it's all tragic and a loss and important in their own ways. Thanks. Kennvido (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Title

The current title does not reflect how this tragedy has come to be known. It is commonly referenced as the Salvation Army Store Collapse acknowledging that the victims of this tragedy were in the building next door that was not the target of the demolition work. All the direct victims of the incident were in the adjacent Salvation Army Thrift Store. Retitling this article could better reflect that fact. Cochetti (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The current title "2013 Philadelphia building collapse" is too vague due to confusion with the July 29th explosion on Daly street. A possible alternative is "Philadelphia Salvation Army Building collapse," as the collapse is notable due to the fatalities in the salvation army thrift store. Laughing man6 (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this really the best title for this article? Who would know the exact names of the streets, other than people who live in that immediate vicinity? Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

That's how the location has been consistently described on the news here in Philadelphia. That's how most people I've spoken with know the location. The Salvation Army thrift store itself is not that notable, but Market St. is the main E-W thoroughfare of downtown Philadelphia, the divider between North nth St. and South nth St.

I heard about this on the TV news in a doctor's waiting room, and I immediately thought "My God, that's where Trader Joe's is!" (the supermarket where I shop every week). But the announcers said nothing about which corner it was on. At one point they said that the collapsed building was the Sidney Hillman Apartments, which is wrong: that's on the southwest corner, the collapse was on the southeast corner, and Trader Joe's is at the back of the building on the northeast corner. Thnidu (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. What is "common knowledge" or "common terminology" to people within the local Philadelphia area is not the same as to those of us outside of that local area (i.e., the rest of the USA and/or the rest of the world). Therefore, the names of the exact / specific streets would not be known to those outside the local area, nor would they mean much to us. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Point well made, and I see now that the move has been voted on, approved, and carried out. Thnidu (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

---

22nd and Market building collapse → 2013 Philadelphia building collapse – the new title is more informative and better descriptive of the location for readers outside Philadelphia WWGB (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support, per the nominator's rationale. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support per the nominator's rationale and the threaded discussion that I started above (entitled "Title"). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per the nomination. Makes more sense. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 21:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 Philadelphia building collapse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130612014219/http://www.huffingtonpost.com:80/2013/06/08/sean-benschop-charges-philadelphia-building-collapse_n_3407485.html?ref=topbar to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/08/sean-benschop-charges-philadelphia-building-collapse_n_3407485.html?ref=topbar

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)