Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherman, Texas 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   Keep. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sherman, Texas bus accident

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a non-notable bus accident. This article was written shortly after the accident when it was still in the news but Wikipedia is not a news source and it should have been deleted back then. Creating articles about every road accident that gets into the news would not be a worthwhile venture for Wikipedia. And who, outside of the area that it happened in, actually remembers this accident now? Notability is not temporary. Millionsandbillions (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOTNEWS. Huon (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to keep following expanded coverage. If the crash changes the behaviour of federal agencies, it's notable. Huon (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  13:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  13:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per not notable and WP:NOTNEWS Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it still looks like a WP:NOTNEWS violation to me. The debate on seatbelts in buses has been on and off for decades so I can't agree that this is anymore significant than other crashes based on that alone. The overseas news coverage doesn't make it anymore notable than news coverage in the states of americans dieing in a bus crash in germany would make that crash notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per policy WP:NOT and essay WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Some concern as expressed in the previous struck-out comment about it being just a news atory about a vehicle accident,, but 2 new refs (3 are shown but 2 are based on the same AP story) indicate some societal effects in bus licensing and possible governmental requirements for laminated glass and safety belts. Revisit this later to see if the seeming significance in terms of new rules and new equipment requirements pans out. Edison (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not the local newspaper Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 16:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The National Transportation Safety Board is involved, and perhaps there will be recommendations from the NTSB or an inquest which will result in legislative or regulatory changes. http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/bios/hersman.htm lists Deborah A. P. Hersman as "the member on scene at 11 major transportation accidents", including the Sherman crash. So this isn't just a local issue.
 * As well, the fallout from the crash has already begun. See these stories: Feds nix new bus company licenses after crash. Sherman crash angers those fighting for bus reforms. Activists say belts, special glass can save lives; industry defends standards --Eastmain (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And note that the crash was covered by media outside Texas, including the International Herald Tribune and The Times of India. --Eastmain (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not done relooking but, I have to say that just because news is covered internationally doesn't mean that it still isn't news in wikipedia sense. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Traffic accidents involving buses tend to produce greater carnage than those involving cars, but only because more people are in the vehicle. This measn that they get greater press coverage, as sensational.  Neverthelss, this seems a very ordinary accident, and does not need an article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Refers to safety issues involving buses. If there a magic number when a road/rail/ship/air accident becomes 'notable because of the number of deaths, 17 may be enough? PS: I was asked to write the article. Hugo999 (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Eastman's logic re NTSB involvement. A similar rationale has been used for aviation accidents/incidents i.e. that involvement of a major investigative agency with attendant (likely) impact on regulation or operation brings notability. Reviewing the NTSB's list of Highway Accident Reports and Briefs suggests, by looking at the second numeral, which is the annual report index, that they rarely produce more than 3 or 4 formal Highway Accident reports per year (for some reason they went crazy in 2002, with 19, but many are similar and there may have been a 'campaign' to cover many similar accident causes that year.) That would tend to suggest, if this accident generates an NTSB report, that it's one of the 5 most important US highway accidents this year, certainly grounds for notability I think. In fact, I note the NTSB has announced a public hearing; not even all aircraft accidents get one of these. That usually signifies high profile and likelihood of significant recommendations.MadScot666 (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note This page is normal. If you say it a new reporter and should be delete, then all of the pages in Category:Bus accidents in the United States would be delete too because they all discussed about bus accident/disaster. There're also many other articles that look like news service, like 2006 US raid on Iranian diplomats or 26 July 2007 Baghdad market bombing. 96.229.193.68 (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Still haven't finished but, other stuff needs deleting isn't a valid rationale to keep. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I know that there are some who will point out that bus crashes happen all over the world, and that not all of those get their own article. On the other hand, there is no reason to delete an article about a fatal bus accident in Africa or South America.  If 17 people were killed in an airplane crash, it would be considered notable, and I see no difference here. Mandsford (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) the difference is in rarity of occurance (just as a beginning). I fail to see what point you are trying to make with the reference to accidents in Africa or South America? Would you mind elaborating?Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. I think it is relevant to the point about recentism (which I think, by the way, is a good point!).  Would this be notable if an editor hadn't seen the breaking news coverage of the accident on CNN, and news items that night on NBC?  I'm saying that if someone were to create an article about a bus accident that happened on March 5, 1998, in Colombo, Sri Lanka, where 32 people died, it would be entitled to the same deference as a bus accident that happened in 2008 in Texas where 17 people were killed.  I can guarantee that the Texas accident received significantly more coverage on CNN, however.  Looking back over your original point, you raise recentism, which is most certainly relevant.  People see something on TV and want to create an article about it.  In the case of a recent event, we have to ask the question-- regardless of when or where this happened, would it be notable?  My opinion is that any accident which has a significant number of deaths is notable, regardless of when or where it happened.  I know, "significant" is something that's a matter of opinion.  And before anyone calls me on it, I know that Sri Lanka is not in Africa or South America.  Mandsford (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Sri Lanka incident was a terrorist bus bombing campaign. How can you compare the two?   Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep due to non-"routine coverage" and fallout events. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2008 (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.