Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kasganj level crossing disaster

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. ✗plicit 07:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kasganj level crossing disaster

[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)

Non-notable news story. No WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:NEVENTS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and India. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the BBC covers an event, it's probably notable. 16 years after the disaster, The Economic Times mentioned it in a list of railway incidents in which people were killed. The investigation report mentioned two reasons for the disaster: the fact that the manned crossing barriers were open to road traffic and not interlocked to protecting rail signals; and that the train was dispatched in violation of standing instructions. I think railway workers and managers throughout India were very careful not to allow those things to happen again. Editors need to be more careful when they are considering nominating an article for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing here contributes to notability through WP:GNG or WP:NEVENTS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reliable sources exist within article, looks sufficient to establish notability. If it was only one or the other, possibly not, but I'd say these two articles are enough to esatblish notability and coverage. Fieari (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is sustained coverage as one source is from 2002 and the other from 2018. Sources establish notability per WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and I also found some more sources.[1][2] GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. Sources definitely meet WP:GNG. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is quite a difficult one and I'm undecided; the Economic Times source is a passing reference of no informational value. The BBC report states quite openly "Accidents occur frequently on India's vast state-run rail network", which is not a great indicator that the BBC regarded this accident as particularly unusual or notable. The remaining reference is the primary accident report itself. I really hate the very idea of deciding that an accident that cost so many lives isn't "notable", but it's unfortunately true that India's rail system, combined with a very large population, has a very high casualty-rate (two per hour).[3]. It's certainly not fair to ask Thebiguglyalien to take more care; the sourcing genuinely isn't great. Elemimele (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since people are asserting GNG without evaluating the sources:

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Thebiguglyalien
Commissioner of Railway Safety	~ Not sure whether to mark a government report as independent in this case	Routine WP:PRIMARY source	✘ No
BBC		Primary news source, only routine coverage	✘ No
The Economic Times		Passing mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Sources can't be patchworked together to create significant coverage where it didn't previously exist in any individual source. Either a source provides SIGCOV or it doesn't, and none of these do. Unless someone can provide a source that meets all of the requirements listed at WP:GNG, the keep !votes are based in a misunderstanding of the sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage and 49 fatalities. Of course it's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would be better suited in a list of railway accidents in India, 49 is no small number for fatalities, but these occur semi-regularly in India, this one doesn't seem more notable than another. Oaktree b (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain - Covered by BBC News and The Economic, Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:59, 5 June 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.