Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baku-Gazakh motorway minibus 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baku-Gazakh motorway minibus crash

Per WP:NOTNEWS. It's very unfortunate that children died, but we can't create an article for every idiot driver that slams into a loaded truck. VartanM (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; we can't even create an article for even the more deadly ones. Nyttend (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A country's most fatal road accident is sufficient for notability. In terms of deaths, i don;t know how many it takes, but this is a large enough number to be substantial. In terms of sources, the International Her. Tribune is enough to show wider than national interest--and national interest would have been sufficient. Even if it's not one's own country. I think the trivializing language of the nomination is unfortunate. If someone kills enough people, it's notable--and are you absolutely certain it's his fault? BLP applies here also. And of course we can create an article for the more deadly ones, we're not paper. DGG (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What if a new accident happened and become countries most deadly? VartanM (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad faith nomination. I'll look for more info. --Brand спойт 09:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT#NEWS, single event with limited news coverage, and I do not see wider than national interest, a very short snippet in the IHT does not equate with international interest. Tragic accident, but accidents of this type happen everyday around the world. Afroghost (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Not everything that is reported in the news is encyclopedic. Deor (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The death of 14 people in a bus crash is tragic, but most motor vehicle accidents don't merit their own article. This was created after the news broke, which is not unusual, and it's a case of WP:RECENT. When one thinks about all the transportation accidents -- buses, planes, trains, boats -- that have had 14 or more fatalities over the years, most of them would not rate their own article whether in 2007 or 1977. Mandsford (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I'm amazed. The article was not challenged for two years. I'm not an adherent of martyrology, but there are some exceptions. Fatalities in many crashes indeed exceed 14, but for that particular country it's a landmark. And we have Category:2007 road accidents, don't we? --Brand спойт 08:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the article nowhere shows that this accident was a "landmark" for Azerbaijan. Was there any lasting impact, any changes in safety regulations or a political response. I cannot see anything in this article that indicates that this article satisfies the requirement from WP:NOT#NEWS considers the historical notability of persons and events. You are right that there are other articles on road accidents. Some of them should be deleted too, as they do not demonstrate historical notability. Some of them do that, and we should keep in them. In any case, this is the deletion discussion for this particular article, not for any other articles. Furthermore, the article was already challenged in October last year (by the nominator of this deletion discussion) as one can see on the articles talk page. Nothing happened, so I am assumning that the article does demonstrate historical significance because this accident had no historical significance. Afroghost (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually unaware of the article's talk and Vartan did not notify me. --Brand спойт 21:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as saddening as it is that children died, sooner or later there is going to be another accident with a higher death toll and then another and another. We can't create articles every time an accident happens. My suggestion is to move the article to wikinews where its more appropriate. VartanM (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per DGG. — neuro^(talk) 13:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 14 people is a signifigant number, especially in the history of this nation. Remember we are not WP:PAPER. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks as if this will be kept. That said, several of the keep arguments seem to be based on the idea that this was the worst disaster in the history of Azerbaijan. The article said only that this had been the largest number of deaths in a bua accident since 1997, one of those stats that the news media likes to toss out, as if deaths were RBIs. Generally, accidents of this magnitude are covered outside of the local news only for the first couple of days after the event, even in the United States. Part of this is that this hour's CNN Breaking News will soon be replaced by some different CNN Breaking News. The reason that we have Category:2007 road accidents is because people tend to write articles like this as soon as they hear the news. If people really wanted an article for every road accident in history, we would have a large group of articles in Category:1957 road accidents as well. Mandsford (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox may improve the stuff, I'll compile. --Brand спойт 20:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to have no genuine notability. If something significant had changed as a result of the accident, such as a new piece of legislation, or someone notable had died, or the dead and injured were part of some notable group or ethnic minority (resulting in serious impact on that group or minority) then maybe it would have notability. But not as things stand now. Meowy 18:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.