2023 Kericho truck crash : At best, it is WP:TOOSOON .  To quote WP:EVENTCRIT : A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article.
 Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect...  Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.  (Emphasis in original)  This is a tragic event, but not "notable" as of this moment for Wikipedia's standards.  If there are convictions, legal changes, hearings, etc., then it may be notable through the aftermath.  Eve rgr een Fir (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Transportation ,  and Kenya .  Eve rgr een Fir (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - this is being considered for ITN currently, it has at least a few supporters there.  As was pointed out, there are plenty of smaller accidents with their own articles even if the long-term consequences are limited.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Many sources and a large number of casualties.  I'm shocked that this was nominated.  gidonb ( talk ) 00:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The threshold for unless something further gives them additional enduring significance may be passed given the magnitude of the event.  Update: Keep per notes about WP:RAPID below — siro χ o 06:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete, leaning neutral - this has a stronger argument for notability than 2023 Buldhana bus accident by the sheer number of deaths, but I'm still not convinced that a crash in an "area [...] known for having frequent road incidents" passes NEVENTS and NOTNEWS.  Anarchyte ( talk ) 08:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  An accident that causes 52 deaths is clearly notable and it also meets WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Necrothesp , I'm going to ask you to refrain from making up your own notability guidelines. Please see WP:EFFECT for what type of effects are considered sufficient to be presumed notable. The barrier is significantly higher than "52 deaths". Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 17:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thebiguglyalien , I'm going to ask you to please refrain from pomposity. It's not a good look. Any editor can make any comment they choose at AfD, and you'll note (or maybe you missed it, although it was rather clear) that I also cited a notability guideline, WP:GNG . Also note that the idea that an accident on this scale would not be considered notable if it occurred in the USA or the UK is simply laughable. So here's another citation for you, WP:SYSTEMIC . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 07:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : If this accident had occurred in some western countries such as the US, this nomination would not have occured.  This is an example of the bias in wikipedia.  52 deaths from an accident is something significant and clearly notable.  117.254.34.205 ( talk ) 13:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carberry highway collision (2nd nomination) as well, so it's not that the crash didn't occur in a Western country.  I'm clearly in the minority here to think these articles are absolutely unwarranted and prime examples of what NOTNEWS is meant to prevent.  The same issue is seen with various shootings.  Why my fellow editors view these as encyclopedia-worthy is beyond me.  Eve rgr een Fir (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You clearly are.  Why (some of) my fellow editors view teenage social media "influencers" as encyclopaedia-worthy is beyond me , but hey, them's the breaks!  We all have our own ideas of what's encyclopaedic.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 07:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per NOT:NEWS, NEVENTS and WP:N - a burst of coverage of news without sustained coverage is not an indicator of notability.  Documentation at List of traffic collisions (2000–present) is sufficient for this topic.  -- M asem ( t ) 18:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Shocked to see this nominated for deletion. I fail to see what part of WP:NOTNEWS applies here. The only part that could make sense is the bullet point on news reports, but For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events clearly doesn't apply here. I feel that NOTNEWS is far too often invoked in situations where no part of NOTNEWS is relevant to the situation. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:RAPID . Seems to still be getting some coverage, with at least the possibility of resulting policy change. Agree with Vanilla Wizard above that NOTNEWS does not apply. -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This nomination seems like a violation of WP:RAPID .  Also, it seems like this will lead to changes that meet the criteria of WP:LASTING .  Blaylockjam10 ( talk ) 11:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a rather uncommon event.  However, I find the accusations of bias against the nominator excessive.  Deckkohl ( talk ) 13:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  News coverage does not confer notability.  Don't create the article until after it meets WP:NEVENT .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 17:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Side conversation As I asked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carberry highway collision (2nd nomination) — since when are news organizations not considered secondary sources?  Who other than news orgs will produce secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of an ongoing event?  Do you have anything to point to supporting this interpretation?  Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Vanilla Wizard The fact that contemporary news coverage is a primary source is overwhelmingly accepted in academia.  Harvard Library : Some types of primary sources: [...] news film footage, contemporary newspaper articles MIT Libraries : Newspapers are valuable primary sources for historical research University of Cambridge Library : Primary sources are first-hand accounts of a topic.  They can include [...] newspapers University of Toronto Libraries : What can be a primary source?  Think about what kinds of primary sources might be related to your topic: [...] newspapers University of California Berkley Library Think about what types of primary sources might have been produced that would be relevant to your topic; think also about which persons or organizations might have produced materials.  Some possible types of sources: [...] Newspapers and magazines The University of Queensland Library : News and newspapers are a type of primary source.  I find it baffling that it's being presented as a secondary source by a handful of AfD users on Wikipedia.  The whole point of having a secondary source, and the reason they're required for notability, is because they're removed from the subject and they compile already available information.  News reports by definition provide new information.  If an event has been covered in secondary sources like books, journals, or other retrospective coverage, then it is notable.  If it is only covered in newspapers, then it's most likely not notable.  For example, the 2020 Beirut explosion meets GNG because several books have been written about it and you can find extensive commentary that exists after the event took place.  You'd be hard pressed to find a car crash that's been covered to this extent, so specific car crashes probably aren't notable.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 20:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not just "a handful of AfD users" that regard news organizations as secondary sources.  I've never seen anyone say otherwise until just now.  I've been here for six years and never once have I heard someone regard news coverage as primary sources on Wikipedia.  WP:PRIMARY sources on the encyclopedia are sources that are close to the event, typically from those directly involved, e.g. witnesses.  Secondary sources are a step removed and synthesize primary sources to offer analysis.  News articles are secondary sources on the encycloepdia.  If your standard is that no article can exist until books are written about it, no article about a current, ongoing, or recent event can exist on the encyclopedia, and that's just not how it works.  When I asked if you had anything to point to, I was hoping you'd respond with the text of some Wikipedia policy or guideline.  Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I assumed that actual reliable sources confirming it would be the end of the discussion, but you're now presenting your opinion as if it outweighs what reliable sources say.  If you want policy, there's WP:RS : All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:PRIMARYNEWS .  A newspaper is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events .  "Breaking news as a primary source" would be along the lines of The wire service announces that a prominent politician has been taken to the hospital.  The weather service says that a tornado touched down .  But you'd be hard pressed to find any news sources with no analysis.  See the "Examples of news reports as secondary sources" section.  I wasn't offering my opinion, I was referencing what WP:PRIMARY says.  You could also see that WP:NEVENTS , which you invoked, states In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like The Guardian, Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK) - the view that anything published by a news organization is a primary source and does not determine notability is unarguably wrong.  If it was as black-and-white as "all content published by news organizations is a primary source and matters not when determining notability, no current events warrant articles, wait for books to be written", then we wouldn't have an entire section of the main page dedicated to articles about breaking news.  This shouldn't need explaining.  Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't say that anything published by a news organization is automatically a primary source.  You're the only one that's used "news organization" in this discussion.  Any source created while the event is occurring or developing (or by someone who was present while it was) is a primary source, including contemporary news reports.  I also didn't say that "no current events warrant articles".  WP:NEVENTS provides valid SNG exceptions where sources don't need to be found right away.  If you don't want to acknowledge what I've already confirmed with reliable sources, that's your choice, but please don't attribute things to me when I didn't say them.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was not an unfair interpretation to suggest you are stating that current events cannot be covered considering you are still saying Any source created while the event is occurring or developing , nor is it an unfair characterization to say that you are suggesting that anything published by newspapers about a breaking event is a primary source when you've said, and continue to say, exactly that.  I also got the impression that you did not disagree with these characterizations as I stated them in each reply and you did not until now indicate disagreement.  " News coverage does not confer notability ", " News coverage is a primary source ", " If it has only been covered in newspapers, then it's not notable ", and other sweeping statements strongly implied the arguments I've been responding to.  In any case, what you've said is incompatible with Wikipedia policy, including the policies you've invoked, and external references to support the claim that news coverage is a primary source are irrelevant when we (seemingly?) agree that, on Wikipedia, news coverage can be a secondary source, provided that it offers analysis.  You never critiqued any source for lacking analysis, you simply noted that the sources are news (or rather, published by news organizations), and decried that they're all primary sources as a result.  I think we've beat this horse to death by now , so I'll leave you be, but I sincerely hope that you don't make these arguments in other AfDs going forward, or at least phrase them differently in the future if I've severely misunderstood what you are and are not arguing.  Best wishes, Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Would IAR closing this and renominating this for ITN on July 10 be appropriate?  Aaron Liu ( talk ) 19:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While I do believe that nomination was prematurely closed as this AfD had and continues to have a pretty clear consensus against deleting, and it's a disruptive nomination per WP:RAPID (in general, if something is a current candidate for ITN/C, it's probably RAPID to AfD tag it as ITN covers breaking news), I have to say that at this point it's not breaking enough that a fresh new ITN/C nomination would be likely to succeed and I don't recommend trying.  Instead of closing the ITN/C nomination, the closer should've closed this AfD instead and posted the ITN/C nom, but it's too late now.  Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's still way better than something 3 weeks ago.  Aaron Liu ( talk ) 23:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Likely too stale at this point for ITN @ User:Aaron Liu , but I am kind of surprised that we did not SNOW keep this.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Indefensible ITN guidelines say that it is only stale when it is older than the oldest entry, which is well from 06-23, way older than 06-30..  Aaron Liu ( talk ) 13:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This happened over a week ago though, people would probably vote against in my opinion.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 14:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In my opinion it's still better than something three weeks ago.  Aaron Liu ( talk ) 15:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This meets NEVENT and NOTNEWS doesn't apply here.  Neither is an absolute bar against recent news coverage, but asks Wikipedians to seperate the mundane and routine from those with lasting encyclopedic significance.  Generally, an accident that kills 50 will have that, which would justify keeping it per WP:RAPID .  There are also plenty of English-language Kenyan news sources that can be found through a rudimentary WP:BEFORE check that treat it with more than the kind of routine coverage that's excluded by NOTNEWS.  For example, coverage of the memorial service, investigations into how the accident occurred, and promised policy changes by Kenyan officials, in-depth examinations of the impact on victims' families.  [6] [7] [8] [ [9] [10] [11] [12] .  ---- Patar knight - chat / contributions 05:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now per WP:RAPID .  Although within the remit of WP:NOTNEWS this is a major, widely reported national incident with some international coverage (Al Jazerra, Deutsche Welle).  Should be kept for now and re-evaluated at a later date.  Rupples ( talk ) 16:46, 11 July 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