Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Gerik bus crash

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 no consensus‎. Users are clearly divided in good faith here, and I don't think a couple more weeks of speculating what coverage might emerge would be a productive use of time. We could always return to AfD later, once the dust has settled, but I'm not seeing a clear consensus either way at the moment. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Gerik bus crash

[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)

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Malaysia. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it is almost never clear the day of a traffic accident that it's going to be of long-term interest. Mangoe (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an existing de facto consensus that bus accidents which involve a high number of casualties are sufficiently non-routine to meet meet Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA. For example, the community has decided in the past to feature at ITN bus incidents which, at the time they were posted (the day after the crash), were nearly factually identical to this one. The main page ITN notability standards are dramatically higher than the much lower WP:SIGCOV standard needed to pass WP:GNG - see e.g. 1 2 3 4 5; there are countless more examples. To be simultaneously deleting bus crash articles for failure to pass WP:GNG one day and then posting an identical crash on the Main Page the day after is inconsistency to the point of absurdity. For clarity, I am not presenting these as an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but as evidence of the existing consensus on this point. I agree with that consensus: mass-casualty bus accidents strike me as non-routine and inherently enduringly notable based on the scale of loss of life, which will typically necessarily result in a subsequent investigation and posting of reform recommendations by an investigating agency. WP:GNG is also met in any event as there is SIGCOV. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 23:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, and the trend of late is to delete these articles. And it's not at all hard to find criticism of all of the front page feeds, which in any case are largely independent of the processes here. One could even argue that allowing events like this into ITN just encourages people to write articles on events that are of at best unknown notability. Either way I disagree that they have higher standards of notability. Mangoe (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the participants at the ITN discussion also opposed including the news [1] due to notability concerns. XYZ1233212 (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Direct announcements and calls to action from the prime minister and two national (not just local) officials, as well as the creation of a special (rather than routine) task force involving multiple agencies, suggests this is unusual and tentatively of lasting significance barely a day and a half later, far from a "routine kind of news event" in Malaysia. 9³ (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no indication that this event will have lasting significance. Notability is not based on death count or government reaction. It's based on secondary sourcing. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument for deletion here leans heavily on a rigid and overly literal reading of WP:NOTNEWS, conveniently ignoring that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but it is also not a graveyard for memory-holed tragedies either. This was not a fender-bender on a backroad. A mass-casualty bus crash that prompts national-level government response, dedicated task forces and widespread media coverage is not just another Tuesday in traffic. Calling this "routine" is either disingenuous or a failure to understand the scale of public impact in Malaysia or both. We have got folks citing "no long-term significance" barely 48 hours after the crash like they have been handed a crystal ball. If Wikipedia editors could determine the long-term historical relevance of an event before the ambulances have even left the scene, we would all be working for intelligence agencies instead of haggling over AfDs. And the suggestion that we should delete this just because it might encourage people to write about similar events? That is a thinly veiled gatekeeping argument dressed up as policy concern. Wikipedia is built by editors writing about what matters – and clearly, this matters. Multiple past ITN-featured bus crashes had near-identical profiles and those were deemed notable enough not just to exist but to be highlighted on the Main Page. You do not get to pretend that precedent does not exist just because it is inconvenient. Unless we are proposing Wikipedia pivot to become a collection of only 19th-century biographies and obscure crustaceans, this article deserves to stay. The only thing "routine" here is the predictable rush to delete important regional events under the false flag of "notability". Anne4321 (talk/contributions) 14:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ITN doesn't establish precedent for AfD, and the fact that other articles were or were not kept is not relevant to whether this one ought to be. Also, it doesn't take a crystal ball to know that a bus accident (however tragic, however much media attention it's getting in the immediate aftermath) is pretty unlikely to receive significant coverage in secondary sources in even the near future. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically true, and yet stunningly unhelpful. No one is claiming ITN is a formal precedent in policy. What is being pointed out is that the same community routinely finds near-identical incidents notable enough for the front page, which implies a de facto standard that does reflect how real-world editorial judgment works. If the same editors find this notable for the Main Page and then turn around and delete it the next day, we are not following policy, but we are speed running cognitive dissonance. As for the idea that it's "unlikely" this will receive significant secondary coverage in the future — first, that is speculation, which ironically contradicts the argument that we are speculating. Second, this crash already has multiple signals of notability that go beyond routine: direct intervention by the royalty and the prime minister, national-level statements and a multi-agency task force — all within 48 hours. That is the bureaucratic equivalent of setting off a flare gun screaming "this is important". Pretending this is just a standard accident is like calling a multi-alarm building fire just "a bit of smoke". Yes, the GNG is not automatically satisfied by government response, but when national leaders and structural responses kick in that fast and media coverage is both broad and substantive, it is a strong indicator that the article would not become a stubbed-out flash in the pan. At worst, it gets updated. At best, it contributes to long-term reporting on public safety, transport policy and systemic accountability — all legitimate encyclopedic angles. If the real concern here is that we are afraid Wikipedia might become too representative of global tragedy — and not just a Western-leaning collection of "acceptable" topics — then let us name that bias instead of hiding behind an overly narrow interpretation of "significant coverage". Anne4321 (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're reading subtext in my arguments that aren't there. I would be making the same argument if this were a bus crash in NYC that the governor/mayor set up a task force for. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like Schoharie limousine crash, which we have an article for? Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 20:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHATABOUTX isn't a valid argument at AfD. In any event, that article has 158 references spanning the course of several years. However, I probably would have !voted to delete within the early days of that event too because I don't think that primary source newspaper articles establish event notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only gave that example because you made the "I would delete it if it were a bus crash in New York", and I thought it was a funny coincidence that we actually do have a very similar article for a crash from New York. For the record, that article was also nominated for deletion shortly after the accident, and I !voted keep there too.Flip ^and Flopped ㋡ 22:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I completely misread your comment. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expand the article. Great achievement (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree. The obvious solution is not deletion, it is expansion. The article is not failing some moral test by existing in early form. This is exactly how coverage grows: a serious, non-routine event happens; it is documented; then it is expanded as investigations, media analysis and responses develop. Several users' repeated insistence that "lasting significance" must be visible immediately after the event misses the entire point of an evolving encyclopedia. That is not policy. That is impatience masquerading as editorial principle. You do not prune the plant before you even see if it is going to flower. Especially not when it is already sprouting in national news, parliamentary response and special agency involvement. Let us not pretend we are safeguarding Wikipedia's standards by gutting important articles while they are still developing. We are just short-circuiting coverage in the parts of the world that already get less attention — and calling it "neutrality". So yes, absolutely expand the article. Deleting it now would say a lot more about our own editorial blind spots than it would about the notability of the event. Anne4321 (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Flipandflopped, 93, and Anne4321. Accidents in Asia (also in Africa and Latin America) are often nominated under the pretense that they do not interest anyone. I beg to differ. gidonb (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they interest people. That's not the issue with event notability. The issue is whether the event will have lasting significance in secondary sources, not immediate press coverage in its aftermath. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lasting significance is the standard, but you are applying it like a laser beam to articles from the Global South while routinely giving incidents in Western countries a generous "wait and see" grace period. Somehow, when a crash happens in the UK or US, it is "potentially notable". When it is in Malaysia or Nigeria, it is "probably not lasting". That is not policy. That is a pattern. Also, "lasting significance in secondary sources" does not mean we sit back and delete anything that does not immediately have a Netflix documentary. Many enduringly notable events start with exactly what this article already has. To wave that away as meaningless "immediate press coverage" is to fundamentally misunderstand how news cycles evolve, especially in countries with less centralised media infrastructure. Frankly, this gatekeeping dressed as editorial rigor is how Wikipedia ends up with a deeply Eurocentric article base, despite claiming to be a global encyclopedia. If we are serious about addressing systemic bias, then cases like this — with strong signals of notability and a meaningful impact on public discourse — deserve to be kept and improved, not deleted out of habit. Anne4321 (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but you are applying it like a laser beam to articles from the Global South while routinely giving incidents in Western countries a generous "wait and see" grace period Focus on content, not your perceptions of what other editors may or may not believe. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True. The tendency to fast-track deletion of articles about tragedies in Asia, Africa or Latin America under the guise of "event notability" is less about policy and more about whose tragedies we quietly deem encyclopedic and whose we do not. Let us not pretend this is just about WP:GNG — it is about which events get the benefit of the doubt. Anne4321 (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your support! I agree with the policy-based statements of the other keep sayers. Hence the "per" statement. Participating in a lot of these debates, I also raised a general concern and observation. The folks who responded got that. Reiterating, so the closer doesn't accidently weigh my statement by the length of the sentences and by the part of it that created a healthy debate under my opinion. gidonb (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a random news story without sustained coverage in secondary sources. Casualty counts and government statements are not sustained coverage in secondary sources. ITN is not a test for notability or really in touch with the community at all, and invoking it at AfD is bizarre. The ___location of a subject does not change the standard for notability; if an editor is attacking someone for nominating something from Malaysia for deletion, then the discussion should continue at an administrative forum. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 14:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because of comments that there is not WP:ENDURING coverage, I want to flag go the closing admin that this is objectively untrue. In fact, new, indepth articles have been released about the accident on each day consecutively, up until and including today: see e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, I could go on, but you get the gist. I have absolutely no doubt that daily coverage will continue, given that it is being considered a national tragedy in Malaysia, thus explaining the widespread coverage. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 20:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a few days, and these aren't even outside of the original news cycle. You're going to have a really hard time arguing that this what we're looking for where reliable sources remembered this event and demonstrated that it was notable beyond the news by revisiting it later unprompted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You made a claim there was not sustained coverage; in fact, it has the maximum quantum of coverage it could possibly have at this point in time (that is, consistent and sustained daily coverage over the last four days). If your position is, "It's impossible to have enduring coverage this soon after and accident and we should never have articles about bus accidents until at least xx days after the accident has occurred per WP:NOTNEWS", then of course, you can say that - but that's not what you said. You said coverage has been unsustained, which I have corrected for the record. That is all. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 20:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TBUA said it doesn't have sustained coverage in secondary sources. Primary source newspaper articles are not secondary sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your characterization of all of the sources I have linked as "primary source newspaper articles". Online publishers like CNN, The Guardian, the Independent, etc, are widely acknowledged as being a valid secondary source depending on the contents of the article. The same applies for their Malaysian counterparts. They are not automatically a primary source because they are "newspapers". Articles that contain critical analysis of the government's response, or which include reflections and discussion on the impact of an accident on society, are not primary sources. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 22:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To exemplify my point, this article and this article are clearly not a primary source. They are not day-of reports relaying what happened, but rather are engaging in critical analysis or discussing the impacts of the crash on Malaysian society. That is "sustained, secondary source coverage". I am happy to give more examples - a simple WP:BEFORE yields even more. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 23:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there are requirements here that do not follow the P&G. gidonb (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have an essay to explain this type of thing and why it matters: User:Thebiguglyalien/Avoid contemporary sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of this essay, the substance of the article is what governs whether it is a secondary source with sufficient WP:SIGCOV of grounding notability. There is no policy-based requirement that a book must be published, or an op-ed written, or a critical reflection penned, etc, after a certain number of days in order for it to be considered a valid secondary source. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 02:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I would like to state that this particular incident are definitely well-covered in local Malaysian news but minimal in international sources. And as for now, it might be one of the key events that help to reform Malaysia's transport laws and requirements but it's too early to tell. Syn73 (talk) 11:24, 14 June 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.