Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Luham bus crash

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. Sandstein 05:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Luham bus crash

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

Non-notable bus crash. Yes lots of people died, but no mention of this after it happened, no controversy, no sourcing, and orphaned. WP:NOTNEWS Cerejota (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a classic example of an article failing WP:EVENT. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; absent coverage after the fact or lasting effect, this is just news. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Classic example of a 'bus plunge' story: sad, but no lasting notability. Robofish (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 42 people dying in a road accident? Of course it's notable. Just imagine if it had happened in the USA or UK... We can't possibly expect an accident in Nepal to get a fraction of the coverage a similar accident would get in the developed world, but that doesn't mean it's any less notable. WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for countering systemic bias, but this is a classic bus plunge, which unless the people who die in it are notable, are not notable. There are similar accidents that occur world wide quite regularly, including in the USA. Bus plunges, in general, fail WP:NOTNEWSPAPER no matter were they happen.--Cerejota (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. I'm afraid it's not mine. If you look at List of road accidents 2000–2009 and List of road accidents 2010–2019, you will see that every single crash in the USA with anywhere near this loss of life (and considerably less) has an article (not that many, but that's not the issue). And rightly so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the information in those lists are for accidents without articles. I have no problem with this crash being included in the appropriate list. However please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Cerejota (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am very well aware of the existence of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, that is not my point at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that articles on air accidents with similar numbers of casualties are usually kept with little opposition. I wonder why? Could it be that people consider aeroplanes "sexier" than buses? If this is the reason then it's a very poor lookout for a serious encyclopaedia. If it's not the reason then I'm at a loss to work out what is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because airplane accidents are much more rarer than bus accidents with the same amount of casualties, hence the treatment in reliable sources is much different. --Cerejota (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see the validity of your point. Being rarer doesn't make an incident any more notable. It just makes it rarer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm You then need to take your discussion into WP:NOTE, because I am explaining to you policy, not debating it. If you want the rules changed, be my guest, but you wont do that in an AfD.--Cerejota (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2011 (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.