Talk:Garley Building fire

Is this notable?

This article was only created today so I'm not sending it to vfd but it's a building that burned and they had trouble with the titles to have it torn down. So? Lots of buildings burn. (The loss of life is regrettable, but is it enough to make someone look this up?)

Is the Garley building actually notable? If so, how? RJFJR 02:32, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll expand a bit. JuntungWu 06:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The number of deaths makes it notable; most fires in Hong Kong only kill 1 or 2 people. Rodparkes 02:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

"Among those that were trapped owing to the upper fire were 22 workers in the Chau Sang Sang jewelry store's accounting and information technology departments. Their office doors had locked as the fire alarm was sounded, therefore suffocating the majority of the staff. Some of them managed to get out safely by jumping four floors onto the roof of a nearby building, suffering minor injuries in the process. A 15-year-old student who had been waiting for a friend in a doctor's office fell 13 floors onto a second-story roof awning and survived. However, many of the occupants would not survive the fire, as the process of opening a window also caused a flashover that consumed most of them." I have removed the following section. Alot of repeats. Also the 15 year old who lived falling 13 floors have no reference. Benjwong (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural References

We seem to be at an impasse... Or, worst case scenario, an edit war. Numerous anonymous IPs, possibly operated by the same person, have been reverting back to a version of the article which says "The Discovery Channel series Blueprint for Disaster documented the events of the fire and subsequent investigation, labeling it the Gomer Pyle inferno as the name of the building Garley sounds like "Golly", a popular phrase uttered by Gomer Pyle in the comedy series." I watched the episode, and there was ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE to Gomer Pyle. Blueprint for Disaster calls the episode "Hong Kong Inferno." Unless I can be shown a source that unequivocally states that Hong Kongers (or anyone other than the editor who first put that statement in the article) call this the "Gomer Pyle inferno," the phrase shall not appear on this page. If you're new to Wikipedia, remember: references are crucial. Paris1127 (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm going to leave the part about Gomer Pyle in the article, at least until my request for page protection is considered. Paris1127 (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Admin agrees with my first assessment, so Gomer Pyle is gone from the page now. For good. Paris1127 (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Garley Building fire. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 November 2025

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Garley Building fire → Garley Building fire – I don't see the reason to include the year. There has only been one fire of the Garley Building. Similar incidents like Cornwall Court fire and Wang Fuk Court fire does not have the year in the title. Sun8908 Talk 12:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ~2025-37267-90 (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agreed Grahammydoodle (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since the building caught fire only once, so we can safely remove the year from the title, unless one day the building caught fire again (of course I wish that shall never happen again). Chongkian (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above Rager7 (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.