Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Himachal Pradesh 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 speedy deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G7, "One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page." (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 22:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

2013 Himachal Pradesh bus accident

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

May not meet WP:EVENT for lasting effect Eggishorn (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. At least 39 people were killed. That is a notable accident. There would be no chance of such an accident in Britain or America being deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it would be an astounding thing in Britain or America. In India, it's Thursday. Well, not quite, but you get my point: this sort of thing happens frequently in India; it's like a bus crash in the UK or US that killed five people. WP:CSB is a thing, but waving the flag of systematic bias over things that don't, even with that taken into account, meet notability standards only makes things worse. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Naturally, I completely disagree with you. And have completely disagreed over many AfDs relating to accidents. We'll just leave it there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep the event was covered in RS from all over the globe. Wincent77 (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Being covered in RS's does not in and of ir's self mean a subject is suitable for inclusion, recommend you read What Wikipedia is not and the section Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  LGA talk  edits   08:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In today's mass-media world, being "covered in RS from all over the globe" is irrelevant. What matters is WP:PERSISTENCE. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete While I have some sympathy with Necrothesp's point of view, that is not a policy based rational, at the moment, as the article stands, some 5 months after the event it does not meet the inclusion criteria WP:NOTNEWS. If it can be shown that the event has some lasting significance then it should stay, but an on-line search would appear to show that this type of bus accident is all to common in India.  LGA talk  edits   08:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * However, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Having sympathy with my keep rationale but still voting to delete because it's not "policy-based" makes no sense and is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Being common does not make something non-notable - minor British and American celebrities are all too common and mostly have no lasting significance whatsoever, yet mysteriously we keep articles on every single one of them because they are endlessly covered in the media to feed the obsessions of their fans. Yet an accident that kills several dozen people is not notable? This is what makes me angry about Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Having sympathy while voting for delete are not in some way judgments that Indian lives are inherently non-notable while even the most vacuous of American and British lives are. And while I'm sure that these deaths have obviously had lasting effects on those they knew, the accident itself has spawned no lasting coverage.  Deaths are not, unfortunately, solely enough to inspire lasting coverage of all events.  Millions of people die every day, mostly without notice.  We don't, for example, have articles about multitudes Americans who die shoveling snow in winter.  Even though I could find news sources that clearly qualify as reliable sources to base articles upon, and those individual deaths are plainly lasting effects, the continuing coverage of each death would be infinitesimal.  While there was international coverage when the accident happened, there hasn't been any sources yet provided for continuing coverage that would clear the bar established by WP:NOTNEWS. Eggishorn (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not sure what the protocol is for this, but the article's original editor has removed the AfD tag and replaced it with a speedy delete with no reason given[]. Normally, I'd think of that as CSD G7 and let it go.  Since, however,  there is a semi-active discussion with no consensus here I thought I should mention it. --Eggishorn (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it shouldn't have been speedily deleted while the discussion is going on. I've got fed up with calling out the administrator who deleted this for incompetence, so hopefully someone else will do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 12 October 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.