Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Gansu school bus crash

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 was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Gansu school bus crash[edit]

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

A school bus crash in which children died. Tragic but no sign of notability. The articles fails WP:NOTNEWS as there is no evidence presented in the article that this is more than a WP:ROUTINE traffic accident as the only sources on the page are three routine news reports. The coverage related to this accident appears to end after the initial November 2011 reporting failing WP:NTEMP and showing no sign of a WP:LASTING impact. It also fails WP:GEOSCOPE as it is only of interest to a particular province in China. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is some secondary coverage in English of this crash here and here, and this book says that it was the eighth most popular topic of online discussion in China in 2011, all of those sources being from academic publishers. It beggars belief that there would not be many more reliable secondary sources in Chinese. Would anyone doubt that a bus crash that killed 19 children and 2 adults in the UK or the US was notable? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first source only devotes one sentence to the bus crash in question when talking about the closure of Chinese rural schools. The second source only mentions the accident in one footnote that talks about the controversy regarding the sale of buses to Macedonia. The third source only mention the accident on a table listing the ten most popular topics on social media in China in 2011. None of these sources show any sign of meeting WP:INDEPTH. Also, regarding it being the eighth most popular topic of online discussion in China in 2011, sorry but that is very similar to the fallacious WP:GHITS argument; a large presence on social media does not automatically mean that the crash is inherently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also something that is very popular in one part of the world, in this case China, but unknown elsewhere still fails WP:GEOSCOPE. It frankly just doesn't matter if there were to be many more reliable secondary sources in Chinese because if the vast majority of sources are Chinese then the article fails WP:DIVERSE. Very little has been written about the accident since 2011 (and everything written in that year was WP:ROUTINE primary news reports) and there has been no in depth sources written about the event thus suggesting that it fails WP:PERSISTENCE. You have also failed to state how this event has had any sort impact enduring enough to meet WP:LASTING. This event fails virtually every part of WP:EVENTCRIT. Would anyone doubt that a bus crash that killed 19 children and 2 adults in the UK or the US was notable? Yes, I would doubt that such an event is notable and have argued so in the past; please remember to WP:AGF. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" It frankly just doesn't matter if there were to be many more reliable secondary sources in Chinese because if the vast majority of sources are Chinese then the article fails WP:DIVERSE." So, what you're saying is that if an event in the United States is only covered in American sources then it's not notable? Better open the floodgates for mass deletions then! How many American towns, for instance, have any coverage whatsoever outside the USA? Er, no, that's not what WP:DIVERSE says at all. And you will note that whether you argued the Sherman bus crash was non-notable or not, the article was still kept! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Necrothesp, I was looking for a civil way to express my thoughts about what Millionsandbillions wrote but you did it better than I could have done. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better open the floodgates for mass deletions then! WP:OTHERSTUFF. Other non-notable articles existing is irrelevant to whether this page should exist. A town is very different from an event and comparing the two is an apples and oranges comparison. If most of the sources are just primary news reports that regurgitate the same basic facts the article fails WP:DIVERSE. If most of the (so far nonexistent) secondary sources are Chinese this also fails WP:GEOSCOPE as it suggests that this event is mostly a regional concern. Once again this article does not meet WP:LASTING. This article was a result of WP:RECENTISM that has not been shown to provide "a long-term, historical view" -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't follow your thinking to its logical conclusion by nominating for deletion all articles about historical events whose only sources are in English, which has fewer native speakers than Chinese. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a large presence on social media doesn't in itself contribute to notability, but a book from an academic publisher reporting such a large presence does. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not if they feature only passing mentions of the subject that fail WP:INDEPTH. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would help people to understand your thinking if you could point to an article about such an accident in the West that should be deleted and where the victims were not all of Asian background. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Whether other articles do or do not exist is immaterial as to whether this article should or should not exist. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who brought up that other article. As I said, it would help people to understand your thinking if you could answer the question. As it stands it is difficult to come to any other conclusion than that you treat deaths of people of Asian descent to be of less importance than deaths of those of European descent. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATTP -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources mentioned. Don't know if there's anything available in Chinese, as I don't speak the language. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A school bus crash (or any other crash, for that matter) in which 21 people died would clearly be notable if it happened in the UK or US (I can't conceive of an instance in which such an article would be deleted). It's also notable if it happens in China. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A school bus crash (or any other crash, for that matter) in which 21 people died would clearly be notable if it happened in the UK or US. Sorry, but such an assertion is not based on policy. That is in fact a form of WP:ASSERTN. Where in the WP:EVENTCRIT policy does it state that an accident that results in a high number of casualties is automatically notable? -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wikilinked the zh.wiki article zh:2011年甘肃正宁幼儿园校车车祸. Timmyshin (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERLANGS. Interwikis are not an indication of notability. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the sources found in the linked article help substantiate notability, if we are not to follow your absurd logic in discounting sources in the language used in the place where a historical event happened, which would mean that we should discount sources in English about anything that happened in an Anglophone country. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - major tragedy which received significant coverage and caused the Chinese government to issue the Schoolbus Safety Regulation (see http://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/chinese_news/2011/12/111211_china_schoolbus.shtml). Doubtless WP:LASTING impact. -Zanhe (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the source actually says the school bus safety bill has been drafted. A proposed bill or draft is far from actual enacted legislation; see WP:CRYSTAL. It is impossible to say that the accident had a WP:LASTING impact with the WP:PRIMARYNEWS report provided. Also that source is still a WP:ROUTINE primary news report from three weeks after the accident. It may have received coverage in WP:109PAPERS but where are the WP:INDEPTH (as in more than passing mentions) secondary sources? The article still fails WP:NOTNEWS. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.