2023 Texas dairy farm explosion: Fails WP:NEVENTS , WP:NOTNEWS , and WP:NSUSTAINED .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 20:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Texas .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 20:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions .  Yadsalohcin ( talk ) 22:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - high casualty and unusual event - 3% of Texas' cattle wiped out in a single day in what is one of the deadliest animal-related incidents ever and the deadliest in a decade.  It has widespread, sustained WP:RS coverage.  - Knightoftheswords281 ( Talk - Contribs ) 21:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - 18,000 deaths.  Yadsalohcin ( talk ) 22:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there are threshold for number of animal deaths?  LibStar ( talk ) 09:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No.  CT55555 ( talk ) 13:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This is a very notable event, because of the very high death toll, which is the highest known for cattle from an incident that was not caused by a disease or stress.  -- Multituberculata ( talk ) 05:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Note that "death toll" is an argument about whether the subject is WP:INTERESTING and is not part of WP:GNG or WP:NEVENTS , and all arguments based on death toll should be disregarded when closing.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 14:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep If 3% of Texas’s human population was killed in an instant, it would make global news immediately.  Also meets WP:THREE .  96.57.52.66 ( talk ) 16:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes it would if it was 3% of human population, but this isn't the case.  LibStar ( talk ) 12:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep .  Unusually large livestock casualty event.  This may be more of an "interesting" or "odd" event rather than a significantly notable event, which makes it a weak support for me.  And I feel compelled to echo TheBigUglyAlien's comment as well - arguments purely noting the number of cows killed are not helpful for this discussion, and regardless of what one may think, 3% of Texas's cows being killed isn't anywhere near 3% of the people being killed.  DarkSide830 ( talk ) 18:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This article seems to pass WP:GNG .  Blaylockjam10 ( talk ) 08:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just having sources isn't enough for GNG.  It has to be outside of a single news cycle.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 15:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've read the GNG several times.   At no point does GNG say that the coverage needs to be outside of a single news cycle.   The only time coverage is mentioned in GNG is the following sentence: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.  Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. "  At no point does it say anything like what you claim it does.  -- Jayron 32 17:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SNOW keep . Major event that was headline news and will lead to changes in law and practice in the industry. BD2412 T 00:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Will lead to changes in law and practice ". Isn't that WP:CRYSTAL ? LibStar ( talk ) 09:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As best I can tell, CRYSTAL applies to article content. So no. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 13:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:NOTNEWS trumps GNG. The number of animal deaths is not relevant. What if it was 50 or 1000 cows? LibStar ( talk ) 09:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ LibStar : Can you show me where, in policy, that WP:NOTNEWS overrules GNG.  I'd like to know where that is written, so that I may adjust my thinking to be more in line with policy.  -- Jayron 32 14:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's WP:NOTNEWS , not WP:NONEWS . If it passes GNG, then it is notable, done. Juxlos ( talk ) 15:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Clearly a notable incident. Wjfox2005 ( talk ) 12:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep this article about this exceptional notable incident that attracted coverage in reliable sources the world over. Meets WP:GNG . It is likely that academic papers and significant coverage in literature will exist in future. Sources that support the international reliable coverage: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65258108 https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/texas-dairy-farm-explosion-injures-1-person-kills-18-000-cattle-1.6354509 https://www.dw.com/en/texas-dairy-farm-explosion-kills-18000-cows/a-65310099 CT55555 ( talk ) 13:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete Violates NOTNEWS, and most of the keep arguments here violate CRYSTALBALL. -- SilverTiger12 ( talk ) 14:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. WP:NSUSTAINED is/was a valid concern that made notability murkier here, but in looking at the continuing coverage, it does satisfy WP:NEVENT . In reality, this article's creation probably should have waited a week or so in terms of WP:NOTNEWS , but that does not mean it should be deleted now. Looking at sources just from today since some time has passed, the largest cattle death toll in Texas history for an accident [4] and the country's largest such accident [5] is kind of a big deal in terms of NEVENT The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".  The sources are already making that case.  In terms of sustained coverage, agriculture sources are still covering this, so that alleviates initial SUSTAINED concerns I had when I first saw this AfD that had me on the fence.  KoA ( talk ) 17:01, 20 April 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep