Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Buachaille Etive Mòr avalanche


 * 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   keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

2009 Buachaille Etive Mòr avalanche

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As far as avalanches go, this is minor, and something like this happens several times every single years (such as recently at Stevens Pass). If it warrants a merge, it's just a sentence, but I don't think it even warrants that. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  04:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well, the topic meets the WP:GNG guidelines for significant coverage (in this case international) in multiple, reliable, independent sources, as referenced in the article. Hence it may be presumed to be notable. Likewise WP:EVENT guides that it is "probably notable". However, are there considerations suggesting that, despite the guidance, the event is not really notable? The nominator considers the event "minor" and, in world terms, routine. I have found a book, published in 2011, saying it was "one of the worst disasters in the Scottish mountains for decades" and have added this to the article. That is good enough for me not to wish to overrule notability guidance in this case. Thincat (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator is absolutely correct that there are several avalanches each year, and that just being an avalanche is not sufficient to satisfy the GNG. But, as Thincat notes, there are multiple sources offering what can only be called significant coverage of this event - which implies notability. The second bit is unclear, what is only one sentence? This article seems to be quite extensive as such things go. Is it possible you're looking at a different article? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But this just will feed the systemic bias. Any little disaster in an English-language developed country will get lots of coverage worldwide (like the Stevens Pass one a couple of days ago) for a couple days or weeks, and generally will never be mentioned again. Something that gets lots of coverage for a couple of days and never gets mention again is the definition of news, and we're not news, and in this case, it's old news. As noted in the first AfD, a Turkish avalanche around the same time that killed ten had no article. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  15:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC) - It wasn't an AfD, it was the merge discussion on the talk page. My bad  D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  17:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The book I quoted shows the event has not been forgotten&mdash;it is being remembered nearly three years later. I am unaware of an earlier AfD but there should be no objection to articles on Turkish avalanches. Of course WP is biased towards recent topics reported in English and this is a shame. Thincat (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately the way Wikipedia works it is easier to prove notability for some topics than it is for others. It's not just the Ebnglish language that is an issue - it's also difficult to prove notability of anyone known in pre-internet days. But we should not use that as a reason delete borderline notable topics an areas where it's easy to prove notability in the name of "balance". Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a pretty clear indication that it was a notable event. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think I agree that if the disaster is being mentioned in walking books about the areas, that's about enough to qualify for notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.