Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Saudi Arabia bus crash (2nd nomination)

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 delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Saudi Arabia bus crash

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. All keep voters in the previous discussion erroneously cited news coverage as meeting GNG or made baseless arguments about death count. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Saudi Arabia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfDed before. Not eligible for soft deletion. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Death toll is not notability without sustained and in depth sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Received coverage from the BBC and Al Jazeera: [1] Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete World-wide flash-in-the-pan coverage is not extended coverage, which is what WP:GNG actually calls for. It's depressing that accidents involving Muslim pilgrims in Saudi Arabia are all too common, but each individual such accident is a datum, not an event of lasting notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep received widespread coverage outside of region.--User:Namiba 14:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks per the above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2025 (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.