Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Balamban, Cebu bus accident


 * 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. Valid arguments made on both sides. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Balamban, Cebu bus accident

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Event fails notability guidelines. The article had been proposed for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS, but that proposal was denied by an editor who felt that this event (with 17+ deaths) was notable enough. However, with coverage in only a single source, this event does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:NNEWS. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. There has been coverage in much more than one source. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It is a tragedy, but it is not a history-making event. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  21:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This should be mentioned in List of road accidents 2000–2010 with a brief description, per our usual practice. As a look at that article will show, the vast majority of the fatal accidents on there do not have their own articles. Mandsford 00:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep 17 deaths seems significant enough to be encyclopedic. The Arkansas floods killed only a few more and it pops up in the In the News on the front page. BIAS? hmmm... just because one happened in the USA killing Americans, while the bus crash were Iranians in the Philippines isn't a good reason to elevate one incident and delete the other. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The number of people who died or were injured in this accident makes it significant enough for an article. If such an accident occurred in the UK or USA it would almost certainly be kept (e.g. Sherman, Texas bus accident, in which the same number died), so there is no reason to delete this one (since Wikipedia does not discriminate by country). It is true that incidents in less developed countries are less likely to be mentioned on the internet. Frankly, so what? It doesn't make them any less significant. Deleting such articles is effectively a form of bias against less developed countries and we should eliminate such bias from Wikipedia. Also bear in mind that although it may have only been covered in a few sources on the internet, it will almost certainly have been well-covered in the Filipino print media, which is just as valid a source. The (apparently growing) perception that only internet sources are relevant is not an accurate one and is not supported by Wikipedia policy or guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Per Articles for deletion/Sherman, Texas bus accident, the community agreed to keep that article because the incident had long-term effects on the regulation of the bus industry in the United States. There is no indication that the Cebu incident will have similar long-term effects.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * List of road accidents 2000–2010 lists six accidents in the UK, USA and Canada that caused more than ten deaths. There are seven articles about individual road accidents in those countries between those dates. Not every 10+ death accident has an article (yet) and not every article is about an accident that killed 10+ people, but I think those figures are quite telling. It shows that most serious accidents in those countries do have articles. And in my opinion, serious accidents in any country should have articles, whether they have "long-term" affects or not. Wikipedia currently contains 28 articles about road accidents in the United States, which is nearly as many as every other country put together. I very much doubt that every one, or even most, of those accidents led to major changes in legislation or regulation. They are here because they are significant due to the loss of life involved, and the same applies to this accident. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While the loss of life in all of those cases is tragic, that in itself is not a criterion of notability. The fact that other articles exist on similar topics is not a valid argument for the retention of this article.  If anything, it points to the fact that those articles may merit their own AFD discussion.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This accident has now been covered in multiple international sources, including by such agencies as the BBC. The death toll has risen to 21. I really don't think NNEWS applies. Rereading that page (which is, of course, only a guideline in any case and is not set in stone), I can find nothing that would disqualify this article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Notability (events). This section speaks specifically to the coverage that is needed in order to make an event "notable".  Passing mention, even if the source is BBC, does not make for a notable event.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Notability (events). "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." And as I have said, please also stop assuming, as you appear to be, that the internet is the only source out there. This the cause of much of the systemic bias against events which occur outside the English-speaking world. The print media is just as valid. Just because no such sources have been added yet does not mean they won't be, and lack of a range of sources is in itself not a reason to delete the article as long as the sources that have been quoted are reliable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per nomination and i agree on the comments of some users. - Gabby 22:56, 15 June 2010 (PST)
 * You can't keep "per nomination". Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the advice in WP:EVENT this nomination is too early. We cannot yet tell so soon after the crash if this is notable, so it should have been left to allow time for us to form a correct perspective. Alternatives such as merge should also have been considered per WP:BEFORE. Early deletion nominations are just as bad as people writing articles too early. The crash has been reported internationally and it has set off a debate in the Philippines about whether buses should travel along that route at all, the bus company has been suspended and a government investigation has been launched:. It's also not just a local event, it's an international incident: Iran is sending aircraft to pick up the survivors to return them to Iran. There are indications that the event is indeed notable, so I give a provisional keep, with no prejudice against another nomination in a few weeks or months if it transpires that there was eventually only a brief spike of coverage and little secondary comment. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe this is a somewhat backward interpretation of the advice at WP:EVENT. The problem isn't that the nomination is too early because it is too early to tell if the event will remain notable.  The problem is that the creation is too early because it is too early to tell if the event will remain notable.  It would be better to wait a time after the event to see if it has the required lasting effects to make the event notable before creating the article.  If the article is created, and we wait before reviewing it, it will almost certainly fall between the cracks and never be properly reviewed when the time is right.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: WP:NOTNEWS is to prevent things from like ordinary football games from getting their own article. The coverage of this event in multiple newspapers clearly satisfies the GNG, in my opinion. Buddy431 (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Where multiple governmental probes are looking into an incident, the incident has moved beyond the WP:NOTNEWS classification, in my estimation. -- Pink Bull  21:43, 21 June 2010 (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.