Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Brownsville 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Brownsville crash[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable news story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS: underwent a brief burst of coverage with WP:RSBREAKING sources, which does not count toward WP:GNG or WP:SUSTAINED. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Texas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NOTNEWS and failing SUSTAINED EvergreenFir (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 8 dead, 10 injured in this ramming. Extensive coverage. Way too early for the claim that this is not sustained. The experience with similar events, however, is that these are sustained. gidonb (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Gidonb, the number of dead people related to an article is not relevant when weighing notability, and I don't know what you think that has to do with this. Breaking news sources do not count toward extensive coverage. Hypothetical future sources do not count toward sustained coverage. Your !vote currently has no policy-based argument toward keeping. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the time and to date, there was breaking news and there was more WP:SUSTAINED coverage. For example, there was a comprehensive analysis of the event that appeared 16 days later in the New York Times [1] and an item on Texas Public Radio 2.5 months after the event.[2] The extensive and sustained coverage makes that the article meets the WP:GNG with the caveat that only 4 months have passed since this apparent attack on Latino homeless in the US. Hence the comment that it is Way too early for the claim that this is not sustained. The experience with similar events, however, is that these are sustained. Moreover, the sustained coverage is already evident. Also, while it is true that all the sources IN the article appeared from May 7 to May 9, per WP:NEXIST, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. gidonb (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike events in the United States such as mass shootings, an attack against a migrants shelter is a lot more uncommon, not to mention the amount of deaths and injured. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To complement on gidonb's articles: as recently as August, there have been articles covering the crash after the release of the toxicology report results,[3], after a ramming in North Carolina,[4][5] and during the anniversary of El Paso mass shooting.[6] There has definitely been WP:SUSTAINED coverage. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The NYTimes and Texas Public Radio article provided by Gidonb should demonstrate that there is coverage even after the initial news cycle. S5A-0043^Talk 12:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This nomination is not well-rooted in fact and policy. Sure, policies are quoted, yet their application is in error. The nomination looked no further than the references in the article and is in defiance of the golden WP:NEXIST rule. gidonb (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there was in fact sustained coverage as demonstrated by Gidonb, it's just that the nominator didn't bother to look for it. CVDX (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2023 (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.