Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gujarat road accident

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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarat road accident[edit]

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

It's very sad, but it does not meet WP:NEVENT: is not "a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance" nor does it "have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group". ubiquity (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are pretty much the same:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of traffic collisions (2010–present), unless any one of them has significant impact, such as a change in policy, significant investigation, new infrastructure, or some other impact that is notable. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. I'll start with Ghana: Satisfies GNG. Notice, particularly, that this is such a big thing it is getting truly international coverage. Quite apart from the fact that the SNG does not apply to very recent events, and can't be used to restrict GNG (the introduction to N clearly states it is an alternative, not a co-requisite), this is the worst road disaster in Ghana for many years and is accordingly historically significant and does satisfy the SNG anyway. It is obvious that the coverage will continue. One death is "sad". 71 deaths is something else. The Argentina crash, which has massive coverage, should also be kept for similar reasons. Notice that the President of Argentina issued a statement, and that his security minister says the crash *will* result in better equipment being issued to the gendarmes (certainly a lasting effect if one was needed). Similarly the Sindh and Gujarat articles, with truly international coverage and a large number of deaths, should be kept. And the Gujarat incident is too recent to apply the SNG anyway. James500 (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support splitting this AFD up and making separate decisions about whether to keep or redirect each of these mass casualty bus crashes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - All of these events have received significant international coverage in multiple reliable sources and so meet WP:GNG. WP:NEVENT is more of an essay than a policy and editors can interpret that however it suits them and we can potentially argue about it indefinitely. The practical, sensible and productive thing to do is recognise there's not a good track record for reaching consensus on events. When we can't reach consensus, we keep the article(s). ~Kvng (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana road accident[edit]

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too bad that two vehicles collided and people died, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so coverage of a traffic accident having received a burst of news coverage does not make it encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat what a said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gujarat road accident which is the actual AfD for this bundled nomination (ie this separate AfD page is a duplicate created by mistake which should be closed in favour of the main discussion):
Notable. I'll start with Ghana: Satisfies GNG. Notice, particularly, that this is such a big thing it is getting truly international coverage. Quite apart from the fact that the SNG does not apply to very recent events, and can't be used to restrict GNG (the introduction to N clearly states it is an alternative, not a co-requisite), this is the worst road disaster in Ghana for many years and is accordingly historically significant and does satisfy the SNG anyway. It is obvious that the coverage will continue. One death is "sad". 71 deaths is something else. The Argentina crash, which has massive coverage, should also be kept for similar reasons. Notice that the President of Argentina issued a statement, and that his security minister says the crash *will* result in better equipment being issued to the gendarmes (certainly a lasting effect if one was needed). Similarly the Sindh and Gujarat articles, with truly international coverage and a large number of deaths, should be kept. And the Gujarat incident is too recent to apply the SNG anyway. James500 (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Consolidated these two discussions (diff). The AfD template in the Ghana road accident links to this discussion (with the Gujarat road accident header). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. If this many people died in a road accident in a Western country it would most certainly be considered notable. But really, they should have been nominated separately. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I totally disagree. If you can find similar articles about accidents in Western countries, please let me know, and I will gladly open AfD's for them. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. ubiquity (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is, however, an encyclopaedia, and encyclopaedias include articles on significant events, and disasters causing mass casualties are significant events. In Western countries they would be heavily covered in the media (much lesser events than these have WP articles); in developing countries media coverage is not so good, but due to systemic bias we should not ignore them because of that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Traffic collisions in India valereee (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marge seems like it would create an WP:UNDUE issue at Traffic collisions in India. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng, sorry, I should have expanded. What I was thinking is maybe a section within that page on accidents that need a bigger mention than they'd get simply by being a member of a list. Those that ended up becoming important for some reason other than number of people killed/injured (because they ended up galvanizing reforms or whatever) could be spun off into their own article. Right now we have a list of accidents, but that list is not something that really wants expansion of any given incident. So we end up with the only other choice being a separate article for an important incident, even if it hasn't yet become truly notable. It's a toggle; this would be a way to recognize that an incident is worth expanding on more than it would get as a member of a list. So accidents in India that need more coverage than they get in a list but not so much they need their own article would all go into this section. I guess I'm thinking out loud here. valereee (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional detail. Sounds potentially workable. ~Kvng (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be an excellent way to handle it. ubiquity (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2016 (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.