Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acayucan bus 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. Consensus in this discussion is for the article to be retained in main namespace. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 07:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Acayucan bus crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While a tragic accident, it is simply a traffic accident with no apparent larger scope or long-term notability. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOT. Contested PROD. M ASEM (t) 20:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  20:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  20:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I try not to vote in AFDs for articles I created and so I won't here. However, I am curious where people like you and Medeis--who have repeatedly asserted that this event has no long-term significance--are getting your crystal balls which enable you to predict whether this event will have such significance, since I think the ability to predict the future would be pretty cool. Jinkinson   talk to me  20:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL cuts both ways — we cannot assert or assume that the event will have any long-term significance, either. Rather, the appropriate response here is to wait until some long-term significance actually emerges before we start an article, rather than getting into tinkling contests about who is or isn't committing the worse CRYSTAL violation. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As Bearcat says - we discourage article creation on the spur of the moment, per NEVENT, until you're clear there's long term notability. If you want to write about an instant event, that's what Wikinews is for, but not WP. And I have reviewed the sources and this all seems like a pure accident with no malicious intent, an act of human error. There is very little likelihood this is going to have any notability in the future. --M ASEM  (t) 20:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As Bearcat says, it cuts both ways. We do discourage such quick creations, but once they happen we also discourage quick deletion nominations.  They are rarely productive and usually result in no consensus closes because it is difficult to properly assess the event and so opinions are split. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If there was a chance I felt this could have been expanded, sure, I would have waited. But all signs said "this was a traffic accident" and thus it has no place on WP per WP:NOT even with time for the article to improve. We need people to use Wikinews for these things, and then if they become more than just a traffic accident, transwiki them into en.wiki. --M ASEM  (t) 13:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No prejudice against recreation if and when some long-term significance can actually be demonstrated for this event, but at the present time this is a delete per NOTNEWS. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy incubate The nom and the author agree that wp:notability cannot be assessed at this time.  I suggest that an event like this incubate for a minimum of two weeks.  Note that the five references in the article show world-wide coverage: CBS News. Washington Post. Businessweek. Abc.net.au. and Reuters.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - accidents (even traffic accidents) that kill dozens of people are virtually guaranteed to have lasting significance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they don't, at least not for standard civilian automotive accident - that's just a result of human error. We need long-lasting, non-local significant to meet WP:N and WP:NEVENT require. There is a slim chance that some law or regulation will be passed if this was determined to have been a preventable accident, but that's a CRYSTAL assumption, and even if such a law was passed, we don't document all such laws either. --M ASEM (t) 23:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes they are, no they aren't, where is your evidence? Notability is based on evidence, not your opinion about the future.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My friend, TB, I don't see lasting signicifcant...but my minds openLihaas (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am basing my comment off experience - there are normally investigations, official government responses, memorials, etc. that make the news in cases like these. Per ComputerJA's comment below, apparently that is already happening here. When a handful of people die in a random accident such things do not happen.  That is the difference. NOTNEWS is intended to cover very much one-off events (today's baseball game, the latest comments made by a politician, a crime report) that makes the news once (or maybe twice over two days) only, not everything that someone might consider "routine". --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But that's CRYSTAO BALL exactly. Committees issue lots of reports, should we have a WP page for them all? Wwhats the legacy fo this incident?Lihaas (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Thaddeus is right. When so many people die, a disaster will have an enduring notability. If you have a look at List of road accidents (2010–present), virtually all of the accidents that killed this many people have articles - as indeed do plenty of ones that killed fewer people. And a train or air disaster with this many deaths would never get deleted, despite the fact that the argument about a lack of long-term significance would have just as much force.
 * Only 16 of those (200-some?) have articles. The rest just have news article links. Also, most of those are ones that either involved normally controlled commuter/public transit (like trains). Major traffic accidents are covered internationally but per WP:N bursts of news coverage is not sufficient for notability and we are not a newspaper. Note that I have not reviewed the 16 articles linked in that list to judge their quality. --M ASEM  (t) 03:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem, I said that most of the ones that killed this many people have articles. Of course, most of the disasters on the list don't have article, but then most of them didn't kill as many people. Neljack (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And a few of those that I've spotchecked are as "bad" as this one for being WP:NOT, eg 2010 Peru bus crash. Notability requires more than a short burst of coverage,that all these stories otherwise get on the days of and following the accident, but enduring coverage showing a larger impact to the world at large. Wikinews is more appropriate for these stories. --M ASEM (t) 13:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * strong delete' p er nomLihaas (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although I think this article will not reach it to ITN, it does hold some potential for a good quality piece. There is a lot of information about the accident, the aftermath, and the investigation from Mexican sources. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 03:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What aftermath? There was an accident, people died, end of story, as best as I can tell. --M ASEM (t) 03:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The governors of Tabasco and Veracruz getting together and seeing how they will provide financial/some other kid of aid to the families of those involved in the accident (sources: ). If this article stays in its current state, however, I don't think this matters at all. ComputerJA (  ☎  •  ✎  ) 04:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep & Improve - In general it's a good article and per above a lot more could be added - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  04:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep 36 deaths and plenty of coverage of this. If this was a coach full of school kids on holiday in the French Alps, then it would probably be ITN material.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delay assessment as per WP:RAPID Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a popular ongoing issue. However some improvement is required. Noteswork (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. We should consider any accident causing 36 deaths to be notable, despite what some will trot out about numbers of deaths not being relevant and NOTNEWS applying. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Death count has never been a factor in determining notability - it is enduring significant coverage. Events with larger death counts will tend towards that, but that's not a factor to consider article appropriateness. You have to ask if this will even have the possibility of being a event of worldwide interest within a week, a month, or even a year, and the answer, 99% of the time, is no, since it was simply an accident. --M ASEM (t) 14:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Evidently you didn't spot my attempt to pre-empt your comments! Ah well! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I did read them, and pointed out its a fallacy against current policy and guidelines. We retain articles based on coverage in secondary sources, which this type of event is not likely going to generate. (Newspaper coverage to date are primary sources). We don't use factors like death count, cost, etc. to determine notability. --M ASEM (t) 17:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Number of casualties should be taken into account, in my opinion.  And this meets the threshold. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion, but that is not policy, and policy is what is judged at AfD, not opinion. If you believe the policy should be chaged, then fine, but that isn't something that's done at AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not only does this easily pass WP:GNG, the actual basic notability guideline, but the sheer number of deaths and public condolences from the President of Mexico confirms strong notability. I've seen this many times when an article of an event is created soon after the event; some editors take advantage of the lack of passing of time as some kind of validation that the event "fails" WP:NEVENT as no one can prove at the time of AfD the lasting impact.  WP:RUSH is not needed. --Oakshade (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not true. All the sources are primary sources, newspaper articles simply reporting on the event. The only possible secondary source is the mention of the condolences given by the gov't, and that's stretching the idea. Death count is no factor in notability considerations - it's enduring coverage which has not been show (news dries out after the 14th on this). In general, a traffic accident that does not involve things likes trains or planes is just a traffic accident, a tragic affair but absolutely not a notable topic in considering the scope of an encyclopedia. --M ASEM (t) 02:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. Never had to do this one before.  I think you need to read WP:SECONDARY to brush up on the basic difference between a "primary" source and a "secondary" one.  As WP:PRIMARY states, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved."  If the bus crash itself, or perhaps a survivor involved in the crash, were the publisher of the source, then that would be a "primary" source.  If a third party is the publisher (ie newspaper), then that is a "secondary" source.  In this case we have multiple secondary independent sources reporting extensively on the crash.--Oakshade (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's more on that page than just that one sentence. It's been long held that secondary sources are ones that transform information from other sources to make claims, which newspaper reports simply reporting, and not commenting on the story, are doing. This is outlined at WP:PRIMARYNEWS. (Note this doesn't mean all newspaper stories are primary, but most, like the ones in this article, simply re-iterating events as they are learned, are primary).  Even if you reject that, GNG says that a burst of coverage is not a sign of notability - we're looking at a pretty tight 48hr window here where coverage exists, and that also fails the GNG. --M ASEM  (t) 02:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah that old curious contradicting essay (not guideline or policy). I didn't include all of WP:PRIMARY (which by the way is an actual policy) because I can't quote an entire page.  If you'd like another quote from WP:PRIMARY, "An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident;"  So if the sources of this event were published by the accident witness, according to WP:PRIMARY, that's a primary source.  The sources in this case were not published by the accident witnesses but news outlets. --Oakshade (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just repeating what has been practice - straight up newspaper stories recapping but not analyzing the events of a news story are primary sources. The better question to be asking is "are these secondary sources per our language" as opposed are "these are not primary sources", since we need secondary sources for the GNG. And per the policy, these "provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." (emphasis mine) Which straight up news stories are not. That's why that essay lays out that newspaper stories are generally primary because they fail to have the requirement for secondary sources. (And yes, this is a question asked lots at WT:NOR as you see in the archives, which supports the notion that recent news reports w/o analysis, simply reiterating details, are primary works, eg, and others there) --M ASEM  (t) 03:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Practice has been following policy, not a narrow redefining as what is "one step removed" from an event. Anyway, I'm not interested in having a fringe meta discussion about the philosophy of what some people consider primary in an AfD.  Last word doesn't mean that opinion stands. --Oakshade (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2014 (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.