Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Riyadh truck 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 keep. Michig (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 Riyadh truck crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a NEVENT and NOTNEWS. No indication of lasting notability. The sources are only current news stories and not even analytical works on what the repercussions are. The content of the page is 1 paragraph that only details the accident and the police actions an hour later. No reactions or anything. Its less than a news article even. Lihaas (talk) 06:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm not seeing any indication of notability and how this would be different than any other collision involving deaths and injuries. SwisterTwister   talk  22:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep- The article may not be fully developed with reactions yet, but such coverage exists. "Analytical works on what the repercussions are" and other reactions can be found in sources. Additionally, a "collision involving deaths and injuries" having its own article is quite common. See Okobie road tanker explosion, Yaoundé train explosion, Oswego-Guardian/Texanita collision, 2010 South Kivu road tanker explosion, and Venpet-Venoil collision to name a few.  B zw ee bl   (talk • contribs) 01:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OSE is not a reason for excusing such discussions. Case=by-caseLihaas (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that, but I was using it as refutation of SwisterTwister's point that "any other collision involving deaths and injuries" does not deserve its own article. In that case, his main argument is actually OSE, so it should be disregarded.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep for now - It's always weird to me when somebody nominates something per WP:NEVENT and doesn't bother to read far enough into that policy to hit the entire subsection titled: "Don't rush to delete articles." Also, Bzweebl's argument that this is already receiving a range of coverage is persuasive. Perhaps this discussion could be usefully revisited in a few weeks or a month when it's clearer what long-term coverage this will receive. -- Khazar2 (talk)
 * Keep - Notable event. Worthy of having an article. Jus  da  fax   06:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. 26 dead and 135 injured. Of course it's notable. If it was in Britain or America it would never have been nominated in a million years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously, routine traffic accidents aren't notable, but an accident which 'killed 23 people outright and injured 111' is far from routine. I don't think there's a strict guideline on how many deaths are required to make an accident notable, but if there were I'd say that should certainly qualify. Robofish (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is notable and worthy of an article. It killed 26 and injured 135, and has significant news coverage. Vacation 9 23:18, 7 November 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.