Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Chapramari Forest train 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 SPEEDY KEEP. This item is on the home page. It should not be nominated for deletion while there, and moreover, every vote is keep or merge. For the moment I do not see a consensus to merge, but that could be discussed further at the article talk page. Jehochman Talk 14:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

2013 Chapramari Forest train accident

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NOTNEWS and this is not WP:notable. There are plenty of rail/road/sea accidents a year (migrant boat sniking that kill about a dozne or two) and that doesnt make then encyclopaedic.
 * How irnoic what is on WP's newbox today:
 * and more Lihaas (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Chapramari Wildlife Sanctuary. Doesn't seem to be an isolated incident and should be placed in context. Will add value there (perhaps in a section "Accidents involving wildlife"). --regentspark (comment) 17:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are many transport accidents every year, but a few of them stand out as unusual and this is indeed one of them. —  C M B J   17:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * note- this is teh page creatorLihaas (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. The page creator is still allowed to have an opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge a pruned version to Chapramari Wildlife Sanctuary or an article on the railway line (which I don't think currently exists). Additionally a broader article on elephant conservation issues other than poaching for ivory would be interesting; I couldn't find an existing article on a suitable topic. As I wrote at ITN/Candidates regarding a much earlier version of this article, I don't think this incident is sufficiently significant to merit an individual article. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * At the very least, merge don't delete. A significant occurrence but quite probably not a standalone article.  Also recommend that nominator writes in English, or checks nominations in Word or similar.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a rather good sized article now, with 16 sources. The event is obviously notable, and will be referred to long in the future and separately from the preserve.  Merger would be counterproductive with an article this large, larger than the one into which it is suggested it be merged. μηδείς (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * At least some of the expansion includes material that is either loosely related or non-encyclopedic detail. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * just BEC AUSE something had plenty of sources doesnt make it notable for inclusion an encyclopaedia. there is "obvious notablility" thus. How do you say it WILL be referred to long after? Theres no precedence for that. See traffic sats on other ITN articles.Lihaas (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable for its unusual nature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm, thats not what notable is "unusual nature"Lihaas (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No idea what this means, as it doesn't appear to be English. Are you saying this is not a reason for notability? Well, yes, it can be. It is in my opinion. And opinions are valid at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article has plenty of sources, and is clearly a notable accident for involving animals rather than people. - Bhtpbank (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * see above, but having sources is NOT "clearly" notableLihaas (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And you clearly have no idea of what the general notability guidelines say. For your reference an article is notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This article has, and thus you have no basis on which to tag this article for deletion. I recommend that you be given a warning for you actions. Bhtpbank (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ummm no, just being cited in pages doesn't make something notable for an encylopaedia. That argument has been cited by more than meLihaas (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm, yes. You need to read the Guidelines.  Ignorance of Wikipedia Policy does not mean that you are correct. -Bhtpbank (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Major accidents are of enduring interest and so this article passes WP:NOTNEWS. Greenshed (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call this a major accident. The news stories are all dated over a couple of days and then it is news no more! --regentspark (comment) 23:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. This accident currently features on the Wikipedia front page news section. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable for involving so many elephants. According to the ABC article "The crash was the worst of its kind in recent memory, said Hiten Burman, forestry minister in West Bengal." Also I think this article has too much info to merge into the wildlife sanctuary's article. eug (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to multiple "breaking news" stories about the accident (satisfies "independent" and "reliable" criteria in the inclusion guideline), there are also follow-up news stories such as this describing measures to be taken to prevent similar future accidents. So, the "persistent coverage" guideline is also satisfied and that's a strong reason to have an article. Deryck C. 12:44, 21 November 2013 (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.