Talk:Shaanxi bus–tanker crash

removing PROD
I don't have especially strong feelings about the notability of this, but since this article went to the main page via ITN, this seems worth at least a proper deletion discussion. "If no opposition is to be expected"--the standard for PROD--seems a little optimistic here. I'd also be curious to see if fuller coverage of this, such as magainze stories, has appeared in Chinese-language media more than English... but of course I lack the foreign language chops to check that out. Khazar2 (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it'd survive an AfD as it made it to ITN, and I just updated the article with some more interesting facts so we'll see how that goes. -- Activism  1234  04:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If it was still being reported in international media five days after the event, that's certainly a good first step. If it can demonstrated to have received feature-length coverage in the Chinese equivalent of Time or Newsweek, I imagine that would clinch it. We might consult a Chinese-speaking editor to check some magazines. Khazar2 (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Outside of the smiling official, it is a traffic accident. A bad one, yes, but it is still just a traffic accident based on what news coverage I can find; yes, there was some damage but nothing serious. This is a news story with minimal long-tail to meet notability guidelines.  Unless the investigation of the smiling official leads to the corruption case of the century, there's no reason we at en.wiki should have an article about it. It's fine to include in a list like List of road accidents 2010–2019, or make as an article at Wikinews, but it should not be an article at en.wiki with what we know about it. --M ASEM  (t) 12:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, I haven't done the research to be sure either way, but it seems very likely to me that this has received feature-length coverage in at least Chinese language media if it's made the BBC twice, five days apart; if so, it would meet the requirements for NEVENT. But I'm not 100% certain, and I simply wanted to slow down the PROD and have a proper AfD. Again, as a former ITN candidate, it's a stretch to say that this deletion is one "where no opposition is to be expected". Khazar2 (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've no issue with removing the PROD but I still will likely take this to AFD if no new sources that show long-term effects come into play. --M ASEM (t) 14:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. I agree it's for the best to force the issue and either get those (currently hypothetical) sources or delete the article. Khazar2 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)