Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tham Luang cave rescue

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 Speedy Keep per WP:SK#6 and will be patently in the news for weeks, if not months. Step hen 01:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tham Luang cave rescue[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 not every dramatic event needs coverage on here Prisencolin (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW keep Is this a joke nom? We have always had articles about major news stories such as plane crashes, terrorist acts and the like. We created the article about the Chile miners' story as it happened. Openlydialectic (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/Snow keep, this AFD is purely disruptive (I declined a PROD immediately prior). Way to ignore WP:BEFORE, Prisencolin. This event has attracted international in-depth attention and is ongoing. Per the General Notability Guideline, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Per WP:EVENTCRIT, "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources". WP:NOTNEWS is more appropriate for trivial news-items like Movie star makes appearance at local restaurant, or things that are more appropriately mentioned in existing articles. There is a conceivable argument that this event could be merged with an article about the cave, but given that the cave Tham Luang Nang Non is currently a redirect to the mountain range Doi Nang Non, and the extensive coverage this is sure to generate over the foreseeable future, such a merger is unwarranted given the lopsided nature of coverage. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Can't think of any way this is not a disruptive nomination. AIRcorn (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK#6. Currently linked from the Main Page. Suggest procedural close before any more time is wasted. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:37, 5 July 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.