Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derna dam collapses

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Derna dam collapses[edit]

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

Derna dam collapses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Large WP:CONTENTFORK from Storm Daniel. (Doing bullet point list since reasoning is a lot & currently featured ITN article is involved in discussion)

Given the lack of consensus and basic WP:CONTENTFORK, article needs to be deleted until a consensus forms to create/split the dam collapses out of Storm Daniel. Noting for reference that Storm Daniel is currently featured on ITN at the time of this AfD nomination. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or create better split — The Daniel article is becoming >100,000 bytes; and will expand much more as there is still daily notable coverage. In the next year there will be a long aftermath, so it needs to be split at one point. Starting with copy-paste (like had been done) followed with a short summary at the main page is a good way in my opinion. 109.37.148.122 (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wanting to point out, that was already done in Draft:2023 Libya flood (created prior to this article and is in a whole lot better shape than this article). Given the lack of consensus for this article to even exist right now, the copy/paste WP:CONTENTFORK is not the proper course of action and needs to be deleted until there is a consensus for such an article. The CONTENTFORK article was opposed to be several editors and supported to by several editors. The issue on whether or not it is notable is irrelevant, given the lack of consensus in the ongoing discussion involving more than 30 editors. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CONTENTFORK is not the main discussion here, because this discussion is about the bigger question if a page should exist about the Derna dam collapses. After this consensus CONTENTFORK should be solved. So that’s my reasoning, in the broader perspective, a page with content about the dam collapse could exist and so I vote keep. (An easier way could have been redirecting this CONTENTFORK-page to the storm Daniel page and starting a discussing at the talk page there). And note that the discussion you are talking about, was at the time the article was around 25,000 bytes; while it now 3.5 times bigger and still expanding. 109.37.148.122 (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Delete Prose is only 21k bytes per [2] and thus a split should not exist per WP:SIZERULE. Notability has no bearing here because the content is being covered on Wikipedia as is. Noah, AATalk 19:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Do you think that if this had happened in the US it would even be a question?★Trekker (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • StarTrekker, please refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONS at other editors, especially when they are nationalist or otherwise discriminatory in nature. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing nationalist about it, I'm not Libyan, I'm just very heartbroken and felt like saying the sad truth that media doesn't give the attention to non-Western tragedies like it does western ones. I know this article will be deleted and my comment wasn't a "vote", just felt like its something people should be thinking about. Feel free to remove it if you think its wrong to comment about it.★Trekker (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@StarTrekker: It really wasn't something for people to think about. There isn't anyone that questions the notability of the topic. The main problem is that this is duplicated text. It was literally copy/pasted from Storm Daniel, which is currently featured and mentioned on Wikipedia's main page (In The News section). That is why it needs to be deleted. It would be the same as if someone copy and pasted the information from Tornadoes of 2023 into an article of Tornadoes during 2023. That is why I nominated it for deletion as a WP:CONTENTFORK, which is point blank a duplication reason. You might want to consider striking through your comment, as it really sounds like an accusation toward other editors (i.e. WP:ASPERSIONS). Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary duplication of content from an article that does not need to be split. This can all stay in a single article per WP:NOPAGE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. The dam failure and the storm are two distinct and independently notable events. This situation meets the criteria for a WP:CONTENTSPLIT. It is clearer for the encyclopedia to cover these two events in standalone pages, rather than having Storm Daniel be 75% about the dam collapse and 25% about the storm. Under the guidelines of WP:NOPAGE, the two should be separate articles - including the dam collapses in the Storm Daniel page makes it harder for a reader to understand the dam failures, not easier. Understanding the dam failures requires understanding the political and economic conditions of Libya since they were built - to me the political history better explains the disaster than the direct effects of Storm Daniel. The Storm Daniel page currently has a paragraph entirely about the successive changes in control of Derna during the civil war. It seems very silly to me to insist that that content stay on a page about a storm, rather than giving the dam collapses a proper treatment in its own article. Jsfigura (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)— Jsfigura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Along the lines of this discussion, made a bunch of edits to get the article into better shape as a standalone article. Restructured and rewrote parts of the copy-pasted text, added sections, and added some additional information.Jsfigura (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or create better split I dont have a stake in this fight seeing how this discussion seems to me to be more of a procedural thing than a fdiscussion about the merits of the standalone article, but I do wanna voice my opinion that we should split off this section into the standalone article as argued by me and others here: Talk:Storm Daniel/Archive 1#We should split up the section about the dams collapses into a separate article Daikido (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely. This is the second deadliest dam collapse in human history. Now, I understand that the timing of the creation wasn't right, since there was a discussion and no consensus yet, and this isn't to be encouraged, but we should move on. This is, of course, a notable enough article, there will, of course, be enough content to justify the split. This is just the beginning of a major humanitarian disaster. Death toll is going to rise, there will be better analysis of what happened. There will be political, social, infrastructure consequences. No doubt there will be enough material for a 100000 bytes article--Kimdime (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Regarding the title of the article, I think it's right to focus it on Derna rather than Libya on a whole, seems like 98% of the victims are in Derna, so it totally makes sense.--Kimdime (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve; the corresponding section at Storm Daniel#Derna dam failures can provide a summary. Yadsalohcin (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I split the article from the article on Storm Daniel in accordance with the guideline of WP:Splitting. It appeared that a consensus was emerging on the idea that it should be split, and so I removed some text from storm Daniel and put it into the new one, as the guidelines suggested. It appeared that a consensus had emerged but nobody had actually taken action to execute it, so I did that. It is clear that the second deadliest dam collapse in human history is a notable event in and of itself, and that the article on Storm Daniel was too long to be one article, so I moved some text from the Article on Storm Daniel and put it into the new one on the dam collapses. Now this is duplicate text, because somebody reverted my edit on Storm Daniel to put the text back there. Now that this is clear, the article on Derna Dam Collapses should be kept and improved, because it deserves an article. Narayansg (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable event that easily pass GNG. Even though the storm is a cause, the collapse of the dams with its subsequent effect on Derna is the more significant event. It needs to be covered on that as a subject by itself rather than as only part of storm article. Hzh (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The collapse led to a significant number of fatalities, which makes it a notable event worthy of a stand-alone article. ArticCynda (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing AfD — Reasons for the AfD seem to have been addressed (i.e. not a pure copy/paste WP:CONTENTFORK anymore) and there seems to now be a majority consensus for a split. I would like to note, as someone else earlier did as well, that @Narayansg: did create the article at not an appropriate time, basically disregarding the discussion of 31 editors with several opposed to the split, but the majority consensus now is to keep/split the article, so AfD issues have been addressed. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some editors have argued for Deletion so this AFD must not be closed early. Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have for procedural reasons undone the content split and redirected the article to Storm Daniel, because this article was created at odds with the developing consensus there which has not been in favor of a split, especially as earlier consensus was to merge 2023 Libya floods. I don’t know if this should be converted to an RfD as a result, but I very strongly feel that this XfD should never have been opened—the discussion should stay centralized at Talk:Storm Daniel.—Jasper Deng (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You should try to read the room, there is quite many people here, in fact a strong majority, that expressed an opinion in favour of keeping this article, therefore undoing the split doesn't appear to be a constructive move even if it makes sense from a procedural perspective (and I agree it was not the right time to create the split, but we should move on)--Kimdime (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is WP:NOTAVOTE. One of the keep !voters is an obvious WP:SPA that's a likely sock of someone (I'm trying to determine who, then will file the SPI). The participation at this AfD so far has been much less than at that that talk page discussion and the arguments presented here do not at all outweigh the arguments made there.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which account do you believe is a Wikipedia:SPA? Jsfigura (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jsfigura: It's quite obviously you, as I labeled above. Do you have any prior editing history? If so, please note it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jsfigura.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I take great issue with this. Do not accuse me of being a sockpuppet without evidence. It's terrible behavior and terribly rude.
    I took the time to familiarize myself with the guidance to editors before commenting, particularly because the topic I wanted to comment on has some procedural nuance. I would have thought that was desirable for a new editor. We have differing opinions on how to handle this article - do not WP:BITE me. Jsfigura (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notability is the sole criterion dictatating whether a subject deserves its own article, and the 2023 Derna dam collapse (or 2023 Derna flood or 2023 Libya flood) clearly does. I'd suggest adopting summary style and leaving behind, in Storm Daniel#Libya, an automatic excerpt of the new article's lead. I had proposed Draft:2023 Libya flood before. fgnievinski (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:LASTING. Events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article. Thilsebatti (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it appears the dam failures was actually due to poor infostructure due to the civil war, and the storm was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. Incoporating it in the storm article would require adding a massive background on the Libyan Civil War, which would distract from the main idea of the article. --72.68.134.26 (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Derna dam collapses The CONTENTFORK arguments have not been upheld at the discussion at Talk:Storm Daniel, and even if this AfD results in "keep" it will likely get redirected unless consensus at that talk page changes significantly.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus in this discussion is to keep the page. The discussion at Talk:Storm Daniel never reached a consensus. Since this page was created, the large majority of comments on the issue have been here. I don't think it matters on which discussion page the consensus emerges, and I don't think that split discussion trumps the consensus to keep this page. Jsfigura (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion at Talk:Storm Daniel is a clear consensus not to create. The discussion at that talk page has broader participation and therefore has more weight.-Jasper Deng (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the most recent ten comments in that discussion that make a support/oppose statement, 5 of them are in support of the split and 5 of them oppose. That does not seem to me like a clear consensus not to create a standalone article. That seems like no consensus reached.
    I'm getting tired of this discussion and I assume that someone else will make the consensus determination and deletion decision, so I suppose we'll see. Jsfigura (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename article to Derna disaster 2023. The disaster is a combination of factors, including Storm Daniel, the collapse of the dams, bad building codes and land use planning, little storm/flood water management, poor disaster response, and the civil war. Entitling the event as the Derma dam collapses is too narrow and only deals with a momentary event, but as we are seeing, this disaster is more complex, prolonged, and a combination of both human and nature factors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firth m (talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per multiple editors. The storm and the dam collapse were two different events, and it was the dam collapse that was catastrophic. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks a valid content split. Passes notabilty criteria separately from Storm Daniel and nominator now agrees to retain. Rupples (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. The dam collapse and its tragic aftermath are notable enough to remain separated from the Storm itself, despite one causing the other. RopeTricks (talk) 10:30, 24 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Derna_dam_collapses&oldid=1178880072"