Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moulton Falls bridge incident

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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton Falls bridge incident[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)

WP:NOTNEWS. Minor incident goes viral, right, but notability is more than getting some attention when it happens. Not everything that makes the newspapers (or online equivalent) is encyclopedic material. Fram (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - extremely wide and on-going international coverage - from the event on 7 Aug to today on 20 August - as evident in even a cursory BEFORE in google news. No indication this will die down. Meets WP:GNG/WP:NCRIME and WP:RAPID is in play due to the event being recent and the copious on-going news coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that this event will have lasting effects. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - As per Icewhiz. Also, uncertain lasting effects are not criteria for deletion, as was explained in that rule. THE DIAZ ^{userpage • talk • contribs} 15:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't seem to know when "snow keep" applies. Two people arguing for deletion, and two (including the article creator) for keeping, in no way resembles a "snow keep" decision. The subject doesn't have the lasting evidence of notability needed for an enwiki article. Deletion until such evidence appears, or draftifying until this becomes clear, are perfectly acceptable actions. Note that WP:EVENT and its subsections are a guideline, while WP:NOTNEWS is a policy. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Fram (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that a lack of knowing whether or not there will be lasting effects is not in and of itself an indication of non-notability. However, until a presence of lasting effects and enduring notability is shown to be the case, it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jmertel23: It's August and it ain't snowing. However, for articles on recent events -- WP:RAPID is the appropriate policy for articles that have very wide news coverage. In this case - we have international coverage (really international - multi-lingual coverage - thousands of separate news items all over the world) over two weeks - since the event and through today. What we don't know is whether there will be a lasting impact and continued coverage - thought it is quite possible that there will be. To assess lasting/continued coverage requires a WP:BALL - and hence per WP:RAPID we retain the article and possibly re-assess in a few months.Icewhiz (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but as WP:RAPID suggests, the retention could be done in draftspace until the notability is clearer. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - One of many alternatives in RAPID. Typically if there are no issues other than the impossibility of assessing lasting, then we keep the article.Icewhiz (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy as per NOTNEWS. Come.on were talking about a prank that ended up with 5 broken ribs and and a punctured lung. If this had not been filmed and posted on the net this would not have ever been reported. Userfy is a viable option as per RAPID as this should have not been created yet as per WP:DELAY. Let's be perfectly honest here this subject will never be an encyclopedic one. Do we really want Wikipedia to be simply a collection of viral stories that have no significance a part from the fact that the video was seen X millions of times? Dom from Paris (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into an article on the bridge. Plenty of people have been injured at the bridge, so this is a common occurrence that just happened to go viral. Sounder Bruce 01:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worthy or notable of an article. If anything, it doesn’t deserve to be mentioned on any other article. People get injured all the time. WP:NOTNEWS. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 06:10, 26 August 2018 (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.