Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road accidents in Tamil Nadu


 * 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. The assertion that "I'm afraid this article might as well end up as a permanent stub" is especially confusing as the article is already wildly past stub status already... The Bushranger One ping only 04:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Road accidents in Tamil Nadu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It has unnecessary details (isn't the topic itself so?) and written like a newspaper article I can't think of a reason for why should it stay as a standalone article specific to a region. Abhinav (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are an yearly 15,000 fatalities in the state due to accidents. The article is fully referenced and it has been reviewed for DYK and completed as well - DYK nomination. So the question does not arise at all. I am taking off the tag.Ssriram mt (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove AfD tags yourself. You must wait for a non-involved admin to review the subject matter and decide if it should be pre-emptively closed. Offhand, I'll say that DYK isn't always a guarantee that something passes GNG as a whole and it is usually better to wait for the community to contribute to the AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't nominate for DYK myself and it has passed many eyes already. All lines in the article is fully referenced from standard sources, notability is verified and is quite within standards. Good portion has been edited by others and community has taken it already.Ssriram mt (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The point is, I'm afraid this article might as well end up as a permanent stub. Even if we assume the subject to be notable for now, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it in the future. Think about it. Such an article would leave very little potential for future editing. What will you do next year.. Add some more death counts about the current year?
 * Such kind of predictions don't qualify a deletion - if so, no article can be created at all. We do update stats every now and then for demographics - thats how it should be, right? Also, i was wondering about another user commenting the credibility of a DYK review process - are we not heading to an overload of admin process and losing more space/time by nominating referenced, reviewed and verifiable content again and in turn losing out on reviewers? Ssriram mt (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My best suggestion would be that the article be merged to larger articles and redirected there. Traffic collisions in India might be the best option (Or the only option). Just look at it. Too intricate details... It's a newspaper!    Abhinav (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Topic may be the same, but content is totally different. India is federal and road rules, conditions, causes and effects of accidents are different in each state. If we look at that way, we can merge all countries also to one to have Traffic collision in the world? Also, given the number of states, accommodating statistics of a state would make it too lengthy. There are 1,500 online book references and hundreds of news contents that can definitely make it stronger. I am sure to make it GAN or B-class in a couple of months. Road accidents has become the prime reason for unnatural death in the state for years and there are lots of cultural value getting attached. So coverage, IMO, is essential.Ssriram mt (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay:


 * → "Such kind of predictions don't qualify..." Yes they do, that's why we have an article for permanent stubs. Admins can delete the article, which they think can be a permastub.


 * → Demographics are different. It is imperative to update that info repeatedly, while mentioning death toll for a state/region on an encyclopedia is not.


 * → We aren't overloading their processes. The one who replied to your comment on DYK is herself an Admin. (Is this even relevant?)


 * → "... content is totally different." Exactly. That one lists out almost all major topics and also isn't a news. Your article can be merged into it after cutting it short and listing only the most important criteria.


 * → "can merge all ...... lengthy." Sure, if it's written like this one. But thankfully, there are articles specifically listing out most fatal accidents either historically or by causes. Funny thing is, there aren't articles like this for any other country/province, Because they are not required. There are categories instead.


 * → "unnatural death.... lots of cultural value getting attached. So coverage, IMO, is essential." I have no idea why do you think so.

You have already made your mind and just don't want to compromise. Your answers aren't to the point, instead making the discussion off-topic. I still am not in favor of this article to stay, but if it does, at least make it a bit less like a news agency report. Other than this, I'll let the Admins decide. Abhinav (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a funny statement that I am bound to accept a compromise? You may not like it - thats your opinion and i wanted it and that's why i created it - so community has to decide. Just because some provinces don't list accidents, seeking a deletion doesn't seem justifiable. End of the day, it is notable, verifiable, referenced and reviewed by a few more. I think you missed the point on refs and additional content - most articles in wiki start as stubs. Given the content, the article is already above it. The question of permanent stub is not relevant. Newspapers are better than promotional content or advertisements on film institutes or TV series IMO. Also, I am not here to snub at an admin - i am just concerned about the overload created by such reviews, which are otherwise already taken up as a part of other exercise.Ssriram mt (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well that wasn't what I'd meant to say, so my mistake, not-so-good choice of words there. I implied, you just don't want to consider it. (PS: not 'some', rather none). But ya, go on, it's really 'just another article'. It's up to them now to keep it or not. Either way, it's fine, and the work here is done. Abhinav (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  → Call me  Hahc  21  01:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is referenced line by line, notable, verifiable and has scope for expansion. There are more than one user who have contributed to the expansion and has 1,500 online book references for expansion. It is already above start-class as per the guidelines of WP:India and the article should not have been placed in AFD IMO.Ssriram mt (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, although a move to Traffic collisions in Tamil Nadu might be in order. There is nothing inherently wrong or against policy about this article; the main article may be too generic and large to give sufficient coverage to the topic.  The huge carnage of road accidents, if true, sounds horrific and appears to be notable by itself. It certainly is not run of the mill, and is well sourced. We have space for lots of odd articles about weird topics. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, nomination amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and article is well referenced, topic is notable. -- cyclopia speak! 17:13, 1 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.