Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China National Highway 110 traffic jam (2nd nomination)


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

China National Highway 110 traffic jam
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:EVENT says events should have "enduring historical significance" or "a significant lasting effect". As no new developments have occurred regarding this that would be of use to an encyclopaedia (as compared to a news organisation), I really don't think the article meets event notability guidelines. During the first AFD, this was a developing event and maybe that contributed to the keep votes. But the coverage of this event has totally died off, suggesting this indeed is simply just a news event and not a significant event with lasting effects or consequences. WP:EVENT says "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect." It's been about a month since, with no news. This is also reflected in the fact that the article really hasn't been expanded much at all from the most basic of facts about the incident, with little mention of any sort of long-lasting impact (if there was even any). Therefore, I suggest a delete. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 16:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep- My rationale remains unchanged from the previous AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to China National Highway 110. There's plenty of room there, I don't see a particular reason to split given the size of both articles.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting and significant; well sourced, too. It might be renamed and made into an article with a more general title; there are actually 4 highways involved. Fred Talk 18:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Same reason with the previous AFD.--Tomchen1989 (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per FredBauer. This thing was and still is HUGE. It's well sourced, has more than adequate coverage, and is expected to expand with every passing moment. Buggie111 (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why exactly has there not been any activity on the article since September 14 and before that, September 4? It doesn't really seem that it's that way to me, hence my deletion nomination. I just don't think this is anything more than a one-off WP:EVENT. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ to comment by Tomchen. Should be closed due to WP:SNOW. Jeremy McClean (Talk) 22:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Extremely notable and significant event. Is the nom a Chinese reader and has he examined all web-available Chinese press to confirm his claim? --Oakshade (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment — if this is closed as "keep", can the closing admin please consider Fred's and Tom's suggestions to rename the article? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with SP. Buggie111 (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep extremely notable incident; I haven't even heard of traffic jam that lasted for days before this— Chris! c / t 02:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per 2-3, it was kept 36-3, which I think is a strong case, per 2-3. C T J F 8 3  chat 05:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that that particular criterion notes that the new deletion discussion must use the "same arguments" to delete, which is not the case here, so imo it doesn't apply. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously. If it was notable when it happened (which it was), it's notable.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Due to magnitude of the event, which made global news for a week and stands as the landmark as a "worst ever" event of its type. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge as a significant event in the history of China National Highway 110. There is some significance and notability in the event itself, but that only means the core information in the article should be kept. It does not mean, however, that the article itself must be kept. Rather the core information can be merged into the parent article, which would improve the encyclopedia by improving the parent article.  Imzadi  1979   →  20:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The majority of the sources are news coverage from the days after the event, but not all of it. Recent recurrences and coverage plus ongoing discussions on how to permanently solve this (all recorded here and here, which come from a month after the main event) mean this now passes WP:EVENT's requirements of lasting coverage and impact. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - as the article says, it has created a 'mini-economy' and lasted for weeks. It can also make a claim to notability by virtue of being both the biggest and the longest lasting traffic jam. It's attracted a great deal of coverage, and is a well written, well sourced and generally useful article. --Korruski (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well sourced. --3sides (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect: This event doesn't even come close to having "lasting significance." There is no reason to believe it will be the biggest forever, the event petered out after a week, and was more notable for being a part of summertime "silly season" news.  The mere fact that it is sourced does not mean that the event is notable enough to have its own article.  Qwyrxian (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of sources, and as clearly notable. Very interesting too. Arriva436talk/contribs 17:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:N and WP:V--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting article, well sourced and well written. Slight modification is still required as an image is missing and the article is relatively short.
 * Merge to China National Highway 110 - Subject can easily be covered there.  Dough 48  72  20:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Korruski -- Sandcat01 (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2010 (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.