Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carberry highway collision


 * 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 procedural keep. It’s currently bold linked from the main and as such, it cannot be at AfD. Wait until it is off the main page.‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__.  Schwede 66  19:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC) look

Carberry highway collision

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

As it is, this fails WP:NEVENTS. At best, it is WP:TOOSOON. To quote WP:EVENTCRIT: "A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article.

Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect... Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, 'shock' news, stories lacking lasting value such as 'water cooler stories,' and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. (Emphasis in original)"

Furthermore, the sources are mostly from Canada and UK. This does not appear to have global reach.

If/when this goes to trial, or if there are parliamentary hearings about it, then it might meet NEVENTS. But as it is right now, it's just a tragic event.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Canada.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep No global coverage? Numerous international sources have covered this: Aljazeera, CNN and DW News among many others. This definitely passses WP:EVENT as this is clearly notable on its own. Is there an article for every mass shooting under 3 deaths? If that is your point here Laval daycare bus crash should be deleted then if the death toll is too small to be considered "notable". The circumstances are what make this pass this; clearly is notable. Not WP:TOOSOON either, there is tons of coverage on this and information available, the article clearly reflects this. This definitely passes WP:EVENTCRIT, as this is a major fatality incident in Canada and compared to other places of the world this does not happen every day, therefor it warrants inclusion, if this is magically not sufficient then merge to the Carberry article as this is notable in its own right either way. I would withdraw this nomination if I were you as you appear to be confused on the criteria for inclusion. 173.53.21.52 (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I would also like to add that major changes to the Trans-Canada highway are now being debated across Canada. It is probable that major policy changes to a transcontinental highway will occur in the aftermath of this event. Deleting this story now does not seem appropriate as the event is still developing. McCoshen24 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Simply appearing in newspapers for a few days does not confer notability. WP:N requires WP:SUSTAINED coverage after the event has left the news cycle. As the nom tells us, the vast majority of events such as this are not automatically notable. For example, WP:NEVENTS tells us Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. This includes, for example, natural disasters that result in widespread destruction, since they lead to rebuilding, population shifts, and possible impact on elections. No WP:SUSTAINED? No WP:EVENTCRIT? Don't create the article. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:45, 19 June 2023 (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.