Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Costa Concordia disaster

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Closing per WP:SNOW - there's a clear consensus to keep this article, which has been considerably expanded during the course of the discussion such that the original reasons for the nomination has been addressed. WJBscribe (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Concordia disaster

Costa Concordia disaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is almost a complete duplication of Costa Concordia without adding anything of substance (cf. Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior which expands hugely on its parent article).
Confusion is created for readers as the mention on the Main Page directs specifically to to Costa Concordia - it's there that people will go to get information. They don't need it slightly reworded on another page.
Main article is not so large it demands being split - all information should be kept within that article.
Per WP:NEWSEVENT, no indication thus far of a major, lasting impact. Coverage is currently large but routine for an event of this nature.
Other articles on ships to suffer disasters (e.g. MS Herald of Free Enterprise, MS Estonia, MV Doña Paz) comprise primarily of information on the tragedies, so clearly the precedent is to contain such information on the ship's article except in cases attracting massive attention and a lasting effect (e.g. Rainbow Warrior, Titanic).
As notability is not temporary, if the event is later proven to have enduring historical significance then the article can be recreated (and not simply as a copy of existing material). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 01:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 01:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 01:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 01:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Clearly passes WP:EVENT notability criteria because it has enduring historical significance as the largest passenger ship grounding in history with at least six human fatalities and hundreds of millions of euros of vehicle damage, and meets the general notability guideline with 14,200+ Google News hits already. As a developing current event on the front page ITN, the article is already several kilobytes larger than the section of the article it was split from. Selery (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not eligible for a Speedy Keep - see WP:SK. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 02:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, this nomination is "obviously frivolous" per criteria 2.1 because no evidence was presented that the article does not have an enduring historical significance or that it doesn't meet the general notability criteria, the two elements of WP:NEWSEVENT. Speculating that it might not be historical is not evidence. Moreover, the event is listed on the front page. Selery (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not listed on the front page, Costa Concordia is. Your argument that the nomination is "obviously frivolous" has no basis. As for historical significance, the event took place a day ago and thus trying to claim it will have far-reaching effects is simply crystal ball gazing. Once again, this AFD is not eligible to be closed speedily. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 02:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Easily foldable back into the main article on the ship. In a few weeks, we'll know if this is significant in history or just another boring news cycle darling. siafu (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although ill be accused of crystal balling and i am too a small degree the incident is clearly significant meets WP:EVENT and over the coming days this article will be greatly expanded as more info comes to light and will very likely be too big to fit in the main article Something as significant as this should have its own article. It will have basis on the future of the industry as its looked into why safety measures which are used industry wide failed. OH and does meet [[WP:GNG}} In its own right. Edinburgh Wanderer 02:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd rather see the section in Costa Concordia rewritten as a WP:SUMMARY and linking to this event. This event is notable and will have long lasting effects. Putting all of this into the Costa Concordia would effectively repurpose that article for this event by sheer weight.--v/r - TP 02:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "The 114,500-ton Costa Concordia is the largest ship ever to sink." -- USA Today Selery (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This WP:BREAKING NEWS article seems to have been created in anticipation of its notability i.e. with the expectation that it will meet inclusion guidelines, before the duration of coverage or any lasting effect is certain, see WP:ANTICIPATION. Once you get pass the hyped up "Titanic" comparisons (groan), the facts of the event as described in the original Costa Concordia article are adequate. Nothing suggests that it is (at this stage) independently notable.-Kiwipat (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP FOR NOW!! I feel this way for FIVE Reasons. There is still a lot to unfold here. 1.) It is the largest ship to ever sink. 2.) It will most likely become the largest ship ever raised, or re-floated. 3.) The death could rise significantly. 4.) This truly was a Miracle on the High Seas; This should have been much, much worse, 4200 people were very, very lucky on a Friday the 13th. & 5.) This can very likely turn into an environmental catastrophe. So I say KEEP FOR NOW, and lets see what happens. No matter what happens though, this article should be renamed though.--Subman758 (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Luxury liner with 4200 on board hit reef and capsized, with multiple fatalities, and allegations of mismanagement. Got worldwide coverage. Far more notable than an airliner crash in the realm of transportation disasters. The ship was notable in and of itself, as the largest Italian ship, and by satisfying GNG via multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Plenty of room for both an article on the ship and an article on the disaster. (What was nominator "unintelligible signature" thinking?) Edison (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per v/r and Edison. Surely this will have enormous coverage, and the ship is notable in and of itself. It doens't make sense to keep this in the ship article, because then the ship article will only be about the sinking. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is at the size where a standalone one on the incident is appropriate and desirable. Having this much information squeezed into the main article about the ship would be undue coverage of this accident in relation to the ship itself. See WP:WHENSPLIT.
    "Foundering of Italian cruise ship raises safety worries" from The Miami Herald and "Will Titanic-Like Images From Italy Change Behavior?" from Forbes describe the economic implications of the grounding and illuminate the magnitude of this incident. Goodvac (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pretty clear this isn't a case of non-notable breaking news and will have enduring historical significance. RadioFan (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This event has involved at least three deaths, so this article must be kept. And agree per support voters above as well. This news is also notable in many countries (e.g. the Philippines). Kiddie Techie (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite the section on the main article per WP:SUMMARY. This is only going to get bigger as more facts are established - the largest passenger vessel to capsize isn't a slow news day filler piece. Quite possibly this is the most significant incident involving a passenger vessel in European waters since the MS Herald of Free Enterprise capsized in 1987. I know this final comment is crystal ballery, but the comments I'm reading on the BBC News about their not having been a lifeboat drill and the difficulty in launching the lifeboats mean there is a high chance of this having significant consequences within the cruise liner industry. Thryduulf (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The captain has reported that this rock was not on the charts. I don't believe it but this justifies a separate article by itself. When you are sailing at night close to rocks you had better know where you are going. This will continue to be a newsworthy article for sometime and will stand the test of time. Trojancowboy (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Back From what I see with the article in its current state still largly overlaps the parrent article without hardly giving any extra detail to this incedent. Therefore I say merge the little bit of extra content back into the parrent article. 166.137.142.131 (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I see the vfd on this, and my first thought is 'You've got to be kidding.' This is a big event. It's not going to get smaller or fade any time soon. Merging it back would pollute the parent article. This is an emerging event with significance large enough to force a world wide rewrite the safety rules for passenger shipping. The consequences of this event should be recorded separately from the history of the ship itself. The section in the parent article should be shortened significantly and summarized as someone above said, rather than merged back. --ssd (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A no-brainer; we always have these articles as they are likely to grow too large to be accommodated by any parent article over time. Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend snowball close so that the much more detailed article can be linked from the ITN item on the front page. Selery (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep with the parent article trimmed and this article expanded. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is encyclopedic and deserves its own article to cover the timeline of the disaster as it has only just begun. The parent article should link to it and summarize its contents. 108.72.62.226 (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nomination is for the content of the article, not the subject itself. Content that does not violate any policy is an editing issue, not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a few weeks to let story develop and see where this article goes. I expect this article to become a useful encyclopedic summary of the news articles, and of intense public interest for a period. In 4-8 weeks, evaluate again to see if the material still seems worthy of its own article, or if it seems better condensed and put back in the main article. We don't have space limits, this is a current event. Let's relax and wait. --Jdlh | Talk 06:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Silly discussion; it's going to be written about quite a bit, and will develop as the incident is investigated. It needs renaming; discussion on article's talk page. Q: what are they going to do with the rock and when is someone going to start an article on it? Alarbus (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep. The article clearly meets all inclusion policies/guidelines and does not violate any policy. It is highly likely to grow, e.g. following an official inquiry. The original rationale for nomination ("almost a complete duplication") is no longer valid and the nominated article has since been substantially expanded. ShipFan (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is only likely to grow in size as investigations continue. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 08:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kneejerk AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable incident. Tupsumato (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Costa_Concordia_disaster&oldid=1136112943"