Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carberry highway collision (2nd nomination)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carberry highway collision

AfDs for this article:

[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)

As it is, this fails WP:NEVENTS. At best, it is WP:TOOSOON. To quote WP:EVENTCRIT:

A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect... Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. (Emphasis in original)

Furthermore, the sources are mostly from Canada and UK. This does not appear to have global reach. Since its occurrence, it has fallen from the news cycle and has not made any notable or lasting impact (yet). If/when this goes to trial, or if there are parliamentary hearings about it, then it might meet NEVENTS.

Renominating after procedural speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #6. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Canada. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Large accident with many victims that drew a lot of international coverage. NOT just in Canada and the UK as nominator suggests. Article was kept days ago and was linked from our main page. gidonb (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While crashes involving 16 deaths aren't terribly common, we do, at least from my experience at ITN, see at least one roadway incident with more deaths come up once every month, namely bus plunges, which many I've encountered suggest are not even noteworthy enough and tend to run 30+ fatalities at a minimum. Really, this article doesn't substantiate the significance of this event. For example, the "Road incidents in 2023" template contains related events, all of which are either significant for speculation of intent or involved higher fatalities or a similar number of fatalities with numerous injuries. Also the article compares this event to the Humboldt Broncos bus crash, which is, I daresay, a poor comparison, as the Broncos crash was a heavily covered event by comparison due to the fact that it involved a [junior hockey] team. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for similar reasons listed at the 2023 Kericho truck crash AfD, and I am impressed with how well-sourced the page is.Chamaemelum (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I think it's a good thing that people are finally nominating these crash articles for AfD, as ITN may finally be able to figure out how to approach NEVENTS/NOTNEWS. As the one that posted this article to ITN, I believe it was the right call at the time (I'm less convinced now...). This one appears slightly more notable than the others recently nominated. I note that this might simply be due to Western bias in the available sources, but with ongoing investigations, this may actually pass WP:LASTING. Anarchyte (talk) 08:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the two above above. The fact that it received commends by heads of both major Canadian parties indicates notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely meets WP:GNG. Note to nominator: The UK is nowhere near Canada! That is global reach. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I stated on the talk page of the article itself prior to this nomination, this does appear to pass GNG. As Necrothesp noted, the UK is nowhere near Canada. To add to that, this was covered by the New York Times twice and by Reuters. There isn't just Canada and UK coverage here. Reuters and NYT don't write about random crashes in Canada -- nor does the BBC or The Guardian, for that matter; they generally don't care. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Last I checked the UK wasn't next door to or in Canada..... Anyway meets SIGCOV and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm clearly in the minority here to think these articles are absolutely unwarranted and prime examples of what NOTNEWS is meant to prevent. That the event is covered by a UK outlet means little; unlike with paper newspapers where the was limited space, most news now is just copy-paste from other outlets with minimal thought. All they want are clicks and tragedy generates clicks. The same issue is seen with various shootings. These areas tragic blips in the stream of history that almost never hold up to WP:10YEARS. Why my fellow editors view these as encyclopedia-worthy is beyond me. /rant

EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though you didn't cite WP:10YT as your reason for deletion, I feel compelled to go on a /rant of my own: WP:10YT should not be misused as though it is a notability guideline. It specifically states Just wait and see. Remember there is no deadline, and consensus can change later on. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball. This is especially true during a news spike, when there is mass interest to create and update articles on a current event, regardless of whether it may be historically significant later on. Also, editors updating an article affected by a current event may not necessarily be the same ones participating months (or even years) later in the clean-up and maintenance of the page. Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism. The 10 year test should not be invoked in deletion discussions as it effectively says the same thing as WP:RAPID. What it really says is that, while everything that happens recently may feel inherently more important, the 2020 US election article for example does not need to be significantly longer than the 2000 US election article. It's a suggestion for avoiding recentist bias, nothing more. Much like with NOTNEWS, the way 10YT gets thrown around bears little resemblance to what it actually says, and this has increasingly started to bother me in AfD discussions.
Anyways, Keep per SIGCOV and GNG, and per the comments of TheSandDoctor. There's no shortage of secondary sources to indicate sufficient notability. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID. Coverage appears to be substantially ongoing even two weeks on, with discussion of possible policy changes as a result of the event. (One might argue that two weeks is already persistent, although I think the better practice is just to wait awhile longer and see how things look with benefit of hindsight.) On the broader issue of whether we should be welcoming articles like this, in the past I have been happy to sign up to the idea that we need to get these articles out of the project because they are fundamentally unencyclopedic and take resources and attention away from our core work. But I have found my convictions on that subject shaken by the quality of the collaborative work that is consistently done on these articles, and which has also been done here. If you want to see the wiki process at its best, it seems that current events articles like these are where you need to look. Driving contributors who know how to do this kind of work off the project is about the last thing we should be doing. -- Visviva (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least Al Jazeera ([1]) is neither Canada nor the US. Deckkohl (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Secondary sources are required to establish notability. "International coverage" means jack squat if it's all primary sources and there aren't any retrospective secondary sources. If an editor is citing news coverage as GNG, then their ability to evaluate sources should be called into question. If the only sources you can find about an event are news coverage of that event, that's a good indication that you should not create an article for it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are articles from news organizations considered not secondary sources? That's a heterodox interpretation of the notability guidelines I've never heard of. Can any event pass your personal criteria if you consider an article with dozens of news sources as having no secondary sources? Can you point to any language in the notability guidelines to support this perspective? Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:15, 10 July 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.