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. With emphasis on the internationality of coverage. But no prejudice towards a renomination in the future if WP:LASTING coverage doesn't happen; somce !voters are open to this possibility. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Mumbai stampede (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While there is relatively high death toll, it does not even match pilgrimage stampedes. Further, there is no substantive content (with everything in the lead) and the only section is in the reactions. Even if one were to move the lead to a section, there would be virtually nothing in the lead. Every incident does not become of encyclopaedic worth just because it flashes through the news. Lihaas (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep--Abundance of significant covg. across Indian news.Was reported in numerous international media too.This's a good example of not even attempting(??) or clumsily attempting WP:BEFORE.I suggest that the nom withdraw.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - Significant international coverage. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Widely covered in multiple news outlets. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a significant disaster which has attracted international coverage. Would anyone nominate a disaster of the same level in the United States for deletion? AusLondonder (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT a newspaper. The only thing "significant" here is the tragic deaths of 22 utterly insignificant people (I too am insignificant). Predictable wall of reactions. This madness must stop. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CosmicAdventure:--At least I can well-expect you to be reasonably civil.Being hyperbolic does not help much.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing hyperbolic about it. This is "if it bleeds it leads" fodder, utterly irrelevant, no different from a bus crash or a train crash or a rickety plane going down in the mountains. It happens. It's utterly insignificant. Three months from now the last edit to this article will be three months old. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Relevant content to List of human stampedes. Please keep in mind that a burst of news coverage is not the same thing as notability. The event happened but there's no indication of long-term notability, so should be documented at the given list. --MASEM(t) 15:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Notable event and good article. This should not be at AfD. I suspect if it had occurred in London or the UK that it would not be at Articles for deletion. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep significant international coverage across WP:RS BBC CNN ,ABC Australia ,ABC and across all major Indian major news outlets.Now the only question here whether it will be WP:LASTING that is tough to say at this point .But as of now it is keep.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG for multiple sources and significant coverage. Montanabw^(talk) 01:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - For news, we have Wikinews, there is such an article very welcome (but written as newsarticle). --Livenws (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep--Similar articles, with similar impacts in terms of death tolls have been retained, especially those that happened in elsewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Arkansas_floods — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4201:7D00:2D3A:5539:A1CB:9DED (talk • contribs)

Meh. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Probably some of those should be merged/deleted too. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Relevant content to List of human stampedes. I dont think the subject has long term notability. Soon enough, the people of Mumbai, and India, the media, and even the politicians will forget about this event. The politicians might bring the issue for stirring politics, but not enough for becoming notable. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep — More than enough news coverage to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia, and meets WP:GNG regardless. I would politely suggest that the nominator should consider withdrawing. PenaltyCard (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Incidents of mass death almost always have lasting, historical importance. This is no different. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as plenty of in-depth coverage in reliable sources passes WP:EVENT; concerns regarding 'long-term' notability should probably be raised and addressed when more than a week (!!!) has actually passed. — fortunavelut luna 15:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I know many of you here will disagree with me, but it's my sincere opinion that all these kinds of actuality-related subjects are far more suitable for Wikinews, a sister project on which there seems to be hardly any activity. Wikipedia should not present itself too much as an alternative news site, since it was never meant to be that. The Wiki ghost (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2017 (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.