Talk:2009 Buachaille Etive Mòr avalanche

Encyclopaedic relevance?
Is this really relevant for an encyclopaedia? A simple paragraph on Buachaille Etive Mòr would have been more than enough IMHO (enough to signal the interested parties of the danger of mountain climbing). After all, if we start listing all mountain accidents in human history, this is going to be ridiculous.

Rdavout (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Mmmm... well a number of people were killed for a first point. Which is liable to happen in a number of these incidents. But the dead are from more than one country. And those involved in the incident are from even more than those countries. Looking at what the article contains already (it only happened a number ofg hours ago) and the potential for more to be added it might then have to be split again in future. The mountain in question seems to be popular with tourists and skiers which suggests international recognition. Avalanches are common here but deaths are rare. Three deaths occurred in this incident. I think a simple reading of the facts will tell that this is a rare enough occurrence. And we're certainly not lacking space, this not being a paper encyclopedia. A "see also" section as suggested there is appropriate in this case in my opinion. --➨♀♂ Candlewicke STundefined 14:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't merge - plenty of referenced information here, and adding all this to the main mountain article would give it undue prominance. I wish people wouldn't stick unsightly templates on articles that are currently highly prominant on the main page. Bob talk 14:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't merge - 100% agree with User:Bob Castle. The time to propose this would be in a few days or weeks time. Ben  Mac  Dui  15:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support merge per WP:NOT. 10 were killed in a Turkish avalanche today - 4.5 times the casualties, and it has no wikipedia article. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean it shouldn't have an article. If you believe it's notable create it and propose it at ITN. If there were more countries involved or it got more interanational coverage it might be more notable than this, I hadn't heard of the Turkish one until now. Also 10 isn't 4.5 times 3 by my reckoning. --➨♀♂ Candlewicke STundefined 16:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support merge per WP:NOT as per Bsimmons666. People die all the time in mountaineering accidents. This isn't notable, it's just news.  Lugnuts  (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support merge per WP:NOT. Agree with User:Lugnuts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardoni (talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Merge Very much notable in the United Kingdom - fatal avalanches are rare here. --92.236.26.38 (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support merge per WP:NOT. Of course this is a terrible event, but as per TWOcanada, it has no international relevance, and as per  Lugnuts , it is not exceptional. Sorry I placed the template while the article was linked to on the main page btw. I wasn't aware there was a community policy against that. Rdavout (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment articles are not required to have "international relevance", or be "exceptional" but to meet notability guidelines. There may be reasons for a merger, but these Straw man arguments are not amongst them. Ben   Mac  Dui  18:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol. Let me rephrase that. I lost the thread and mixed arguments in favour of a merger and criticism against the "In the news" listing. Support merge per total absence of notability. hike395's proposal seems to be a good way out... Rdavout (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Either merge, or another alternative: create Climbing accidents in the United Kingdom, and incorporate many accidents into one page. For a North American analogue, see Mount Hood climbing accidents, which was started after a single particularly tragic accident in 2006. As the other editors have pointed out, a single climbing accident probably does not merit a WP page. As a compromise, merging together a set of fatal climbing accidents into one page may be notable. hike395 (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge, looks notable, but question whether it should be listed at "In the news" Greenshed (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support merge; they are not that rare. According to A Chance in a Million (a study of Scottish avalanche accidents) there have been at least 91 accidents, involving 244 people with 30 fatalities and 126 injuries in the Scottish mountains between 1925-1983. Ericoides (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That book sounds like a great source to start an article like Climbing accidents in Scotland :-) hike395 (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Arguably better as Mountaineering accidents in Scotland to include both hillwalking and rock climbing.  Ben   Mac  Dui  09:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 91 accidents and 30 fatalities in a space of nearly sixty years doesn't sound all that common. About one death every two years. Three died in one go in this incident. --➨♀♂ Candlewicke STundefined 23:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So right now it's probably at that 'no consensus' phase, and I'd like to ensure something is done decided about this article before I take it off my watchlist. If there are no final comments, the best place for the future of this article to be decided is AfD, n'est-ce pas? Bsimmons 666  (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have the impression that there is no complete consensus but that most people support merging the articles. Obviously, this incident is - in the long run - rather a news item than of encyclopedic interest. As sad as it is, every year quite a number of people die from avalanches. Again, I propose merging the articles and in the process deleting the (larger) portion of what is not really relevant in the long run. --Bernardoni (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome - I've been meaning to put it up at AfD just to ensure consensus. This works better, though. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support merge per WP:NOT. Those that oppose the merge should note that merging saves the pertinent info to the parent article, so not all is lost. --  P 1 9 9  • TALK 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

WHY is this "in the news"
You know, my heart truly goes out to the family of those affected by this, but what is this doing in the main page of wikipedia? Who determines these things? This is not international news that I can see and if it is, I'm wondering why 9 snowmobilers perishing in Fernie, B.C., Canada a few months ago didn't rate. This was a significantly larger disaster in terms of human casualties. Really, though, this has no business being one of the select news items in that column. This column should be reserved for international news that is reported internationally and that is significant to a wide global population.TWOcanada (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)TWOcanada


 * ITN articles have to pass a number of rather minor criteria - that is they have to be created or updated appropriately with at least a few sentences to feature on ITN. There is no specific reason for something not to feature (unless it's blatantly small or occupies the corner of one newspaper column). Your opinion is appreciated but you can help as well by watching out for such incidents. You can create/update an article or point it out here for the benefit of others who might be interested in developing it. ITN can never have enough volunteers. --➨♀♂ Candlewicke STundefined 19:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The correct place to argue for amendment to the main page news or its implementation is Template talk:In the news, not here. Ben  Mac  Dui  18:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)