Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azad Kashmir bus 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 no consensus‎. If desired, a merger discussion can continue on the Talk, but there's no clear consensus here for anything after nearly a month. Star Mississippi 04:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azad Kashmir bus 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)

A terrible accident but not an encyclopedically notable event. All of the coverage is at-the-time news coverage of the incident. No apparent lasting coverage (link fixed) or effects. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Pakistan. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage and verifiability are more important here. WP:LASTING (which is what I assume you meant) seems more like it's one type of possible proof of notability and not disproof of notability. -- Primium (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being covered in the news at the time something occurs is insufficient to meet notability standards. WP:N says that "Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time"; this incident fails that as all the coverage was directly following the event, with no evidence of any after-the-fact coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are indicators of notability, but the general notability guideline is simply "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -- Primium (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A crash that killed 23 people would be considered notable anywhere in the western world, so no reason it shouldn't be in Asia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And rename to 2023 Pallandri bus accident. "Incident" is a weird way of putting it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. No indication of WP:SUSTAINED coverage to pass WP:EVENTCRIT which states 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. Unlike what others stated, routine bus accidents in the West where many people die don't usually get their own wikipedia article unless they have some sort of broad and lasting impact such as WP:LASTING and WP:GEOSCOPE, or if the sourcing is unusually in-depth and of lasting duration per WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE. We have many such accidents in the USA that don't have encyclopedic coverage on wikipedia for the simple fact that they aren't all that remarkable because vehicular accidents with many fatalities are sadly not that unusual. In order to demonstrate that a particular motor vehicle accident is encyclopedic there must be sustained coverage which extends beyond the news cycle.4meter4 (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the notability guideline, a subject requires WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and this applies doubly for events (WP:PERSISTENCE). GNG also requires secondary sources, and breaking news is a primary source (WP:RSBREAKING). "23 people killed" is an arbitrary number argument that has nothing to do with the notability criteria. Furthermore, there's simply no logic in saying an event is notable because "it was in the news"; there are dozens of major news events around the world every single day, and it's unreasonable to presume we should have an article about all of them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As other have said, there was no coverage for the sustained impact of this event. I agree that the article should therefore be deleted. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pallandri Tehsil - as an WP:ATD; I think the location article can probably support a 1-2 sentence description in the History section. Suriname0 (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Sigcov. Maliner (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Necrothesp. Unlike car accidents, bus accidents are not routine at all. The vast majority of articles that we have on bus accidents in Europe and the United States are about accidents that killed far fewer people than the accident here, and deleting a similar accident in Pakistan contributes to a systemic bias towards Western topics that we should aim to avoid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy based argument. WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are listed as arguments to avoid at AFD. It's possible those articles also may not meet our notability guidelines. In this case no evidence has been put forward that this particular accident passes WP:EVENTCRIT which is policy.4meter4 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for someone to throw WP:OTHERSTUFF at me. Outright dismissal of any argument aiming for some geographic consistency in what we consider to be notable events is a rather superficial counter-argument. Indeed, the essay you cited says: "countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged". But to cite some policy/guideline: I will point out that the coverage here is diverse and nation-wide, and provoked reactions from the state-wide authorities, far beyond the "routine" local coverage that EVENTCRIT refers to. I would argue that this is more than sufficient to pass criterion #2 of that guideline. "Routine coverage", in the way that EVENTCRIT uses it, would apply to passenger car accidents, not major public transportation disasters. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Than make that argument with evidence by presenting the sources you believe meet the policy standard. The only way we can operate at AFD is by relying on policies developed through wide community input and consensus. I personally disagree with the claim you made above simply because the cited references do not meet any of the WP:EVENTCRIT criteria in regards to WP:DIVERSE or WP:SUSTAINED and the sources, while national, do not extend beyond the news coverage of the event as required by EVENTCRIT. (see bolded language quoted directly from policy in my comment above). We need other kinds of sources such as books, journal articles, etc. that are WP:NOTNEWS to pass DIVERSE and EVENTCRIT. Or we need coverage of the event over a lengthy period of time (as in a minimum of a year or longer). If all you have is media in the short window right after the event happened, than I'm sorry that is not DIVERSE and it is not SUSTAINED and it is exactly why WP:NOTNEWS was written. Particularly for a routine tragic events like a bus accident we need to see long-term coverage to prove notability. Wikipedia has a lagging indicator of notability written into our policies for a reason.4meter4 (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nagol0929 (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep It passes GNG & Rename per @Necrothesp to 2021 Pallandri bus accident "Incident" sounds Wierd. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinions on whether the article should be kept or deleted, but at the very least I hope to see a redirect to List_of_traffic_collisions_(2000–present)#2021 as an WP:ATD-R if the result was delete. The article clearly has material listed over there, so this would be a more desirable outcome compared to outright deletion in my opinion. S5A-0043^Talk 14:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear to have had much of an impact like the Saskatchewan bus accident in Canada did, where they now mandate seat belts on all new buses. This appears to have happened, and just faded away into obscurity. Not that it isn't tragic, but nothing seems to have resulted from it that would warrant an article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm inclined to feel (though not accuse) that the event's geopolitical place may be factoring into some votes here. US based "accident based" mass fatalities regularly have articles even with fewer deaths as seen: List of disasters in the United States by death toll. This event seems no different, and should not be omitted due to being "foreign" or less detailed than other articles. A MINOTAUR (talk) 16:52, 1 November 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.