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. I would remind participants that just because a user is not an administrator, it does not mean that their views should be taken any less seriously than users who have been through the RFA gauntlet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Burkina Faso crash[edit]

2008 Burkina Faso crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a news source and currently neither the article or a search shows any lasting coverage of this event. Nuttah (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is a "News article similar to one on the "September 11 2001 world trade center" though not anywhere near the scale it holds the same point and therefor should not be deleted. --Darkspin (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am reminded of the observation that many more people need to die in a third-world country than in a first-world country before the first-world media take an interest in it. I believe that this bus crash is notable, since it will generate thousands of pages of investigation, affect hundreds of lives in a very negative way, and cost a huge amount of money. My only concern is that when I first saw the word 'crash' I thought it was going to be about the stock market. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Punkmorten (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The event may become notable, but given the lack of coverage beyond recording the event even in the local press, that would be crystalballing. Nuttah (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikinews. Traffic accidents happen all the time. Unless an effect can shown on law or regulation or some other wider effect can be shown right now (apart from the obvious effect on the people and family of those involved in the crash) it's not enough to write an Wikipedia article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 66 deaths according to the source, is a very major bus crash, and a major transportation disaster, fully on par with aviation crashes. I concur with Richard Cavell's arguments. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cavell is right on point. Six people killed in a bus crash in the United States will always receive more media coverage than 60 people in a Third World country, not because American crashes are more tragic, but because American media doesn't do much coverage of such events. Mandsford (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NOT#NEWS. It doesn't matter where it happened, or whether it's covered by 1 or 1000 news sources, it's just a traffic accident.--Boffob (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 68 deaths makes it more than notable enough. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 16:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, 60 - my memory's failing. Still... --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 17:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- fails WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. Just because you think it should be notable does not mean it is. If sources can be found keep it, if not... bye, bye. WP:NOTNEWS spells out the criteria for keeping a news article like this and it does not meet the requirements. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the same token, just because you think it isn't notable does not mean that it isn't. Luckily, it's not up to any one person's opinion. If it had been 60 persons killed in a bus accident in Wyoming, I don't think the article would even have been nominated. I think also that most Wikipedians don't know (and don't care) where Burkina Faso is. For those who don't know, but don't want to say that they don't know, it's a nation in West Africa, formerly known as Upper Volta. Mandsford (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my opinion has nothing to do with it at all. That is why we have guidelines that spell out exactly what is needed to be notable. Bombs go off everyday in Iraq but we do not have articles on them but if one went off in the US you bet we would have an article on it. Heck for that matter the fact they have had 800 meningitis deaths[1] or 31 miners killed[2] would be notable in most countries. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Richard Cavell. A road crash of this magnitude in rather small country will generate thousands of investigative documents, both government and private. Much more sources are likely available in French (the official language of Burkina Faso). --Oakshade (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That's just speculation. But if there are French sources to establish notability beyond simple news status, they should be included in the article.--Boffob (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it is a significant death toll, and considering that Nuttah is not even an administrator, there are many articles covering similar subject matter. OOODDD (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"and considering that Nuttah is not even an administrator", what does that have to do with anything? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's another ad hominem attack from this user. There's already one in this Afd debate. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 18:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an argument based on a mistaken assumption. OOODDD isn't the first person to conclude that comments from an administrator might be weighed higher than those from a non-administrator. Logical conclusion, but not correct. Odd as it may seem, we're all equals during debate, and the decision has to be made by an administrator who didn't participate. In my first month, an administrator voted !keep on article that I was hoping would be kept, and my thought at that time was "Here comes the cavalry!". Needless to say, the article got deleted anyway. So please, no arguments based on the status of who said what. Mandsford (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2008 (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.