Wikipedia Articles for deletion 2023 Rainbow Bridge explosion

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 merge‎ to Rainbow Bridge (Niagara Falls). Consensus below is to not retain the article, and the merge option was sufficiently supported to be viable ATD. Daniel (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Rainbow Bridge explosion

[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)

This car crash is a classic example of WP:NOTNEWS being wantonly disregarded. Yes, there was a lot of "week of" (really, not even that long) news coverage, but when it comes down to it, it was a single car accident of unexplained causes which got a burst of publicity due to some spectacular visuals, a lot of wild speculation and misinformation, and a lack of anything more newsworthy to keep the media busy reporting something else. Whatever extended interest in these stories mostly consists of walking back all the original misstatements. One expects that eventually the results of what looks to be a long term investigation is going to be published in some much less conspicuous venue, and perhaps some news analysts will remark on the original hype; but it's also possible that the whole thing will drift out of memory when there is no definite conclusion. At any rate the article as it stands is a rehash of the news reports without any attempt to make sense of them (which after all would be WP:OR), and a testimony to our unwillingness to stick to our own principles. The inevitable rush to create articles on breaking news events like this, without letting history take any stock on the matter, is profoundly against the idea of an encyclopedia. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the aftermath was more notable than the event. The Leader of the Opposition in Canada caused a media discussion over the language used in the aftermath, which did and continues to garner press coverage here. [1] as an example. Article could perhaps use a new title. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Rainbow_Bridge_(Niagara_Falls) page is where this information should live. The event is not notable enough for it's own page. --Picard102 (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to wait until a bit longer after the event to determine whether it does or doesn't have lasting notability. It could be possible that this has lasting effects and persistent coverage that make it notable, or it could be just a news story without much impact. We can't really know that for sure a week out from the event. There's no harm in waiting a few months to see what sources end up being written. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, Canada, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it certainly received enough media coverage to establish notability, but in the end, it turned out to be a nothing-burger. I would, however, love to see an article about the overzealous overreaction by some news networks, literally drooling over the possibility of a terrorist attack and, if their wishes come true, another war. But these things benefit from hindsight. Owen× ☎ 23:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am legitimately seeing it (claims of an overreaction) pop up here and there but it looks like it is mostly blogs and self published sources. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 03:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect I think we can tell already that this will not have lasting notability, and any that there is can be covered at the main Rainbow_Bridge_(Niagara_Falls)#2023_Rainbow_Bridge_explosion. Funny how much longer the article seems because it's broken into several short sections with meaningless nonsense about "chatter about an attack" and excessively wordy and redundant lines like "Niagara Falls Police Superintendent John Faso stated that the car was a 2022 Bentley Flying Spur." Reywas92^Talk 00:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely classic example of why we have WP:NOTNEWS. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's statement. Also, the bridge did not explode, and neither was it bombed. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we need articles about mass-media headline-seeking and politically-motivated spin generating temporary panic, we should base them on secondary sources which treat the topic as a whole, not one instance of it. A sad, but essentially routine, traffic accident. You can't create 'notability' from misreporting of the unremarkable in the very sources that WP:NOTNEWS advises us not to build articles around in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it got more press coverage than the average car accident, but this is absolutely a case of the suggestion of NOTNEWS that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." I don't think there's anything here to merge to the Bridge article that isn't already there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is getting much more coverage than any routine news event, even still to this day. In Canada, there's even additional coverage based on some controversy that extends from this. Considering this was a major incident that happened at an international border crossing, and caused the other borders to shut down, its inclusion is justified and is going to be notable and relevant for a long time. – Handoto (talk)
Strong oppose deletion: No opinion on keeping, but this should certainly have some content merged into Rainbow Bridge (Niagara Falls). Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 01:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think there is great harm in having this article until we can better figure out its notability. The longlasting impacts of this story are unknown for the time being as it happend only 9 days ago. Per WP:PERSISTENCE Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable. I think that there's very little way right now of knowing if this will have sustained coverage; however, I think it could be worth erring on the side of waiting a little bit, especially until a more conclusive report is published and then viewing how that coverage goes, should we decide to delete this as WP:NOTNEWS. I'm not definitively saying this should be kept, especially not if this receives no further coverage, but I think as of now it's too hard to say whether or not it does. TartarTorte 14:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - Notable event. IFF this cannot be kept, it should be merged here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTNEWS and Unencyclopaedic. No lasting impact or influence. A car crashed at a border crossing, and that's it. In fact, it's no longer even newsworthy let alone encyclopedic. ——Serial 12:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per TartarTorte. If the crash ends up not being notable (and I agree with OwenX that the more likely to be notable aspect of this event is the media overreaction), merging with the article on the Bridge should be easy enough. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge but if merged, almost all of the article should be incorporated. 74.11.238.37 (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm usually an inclusionist, but the title is wrong. There really wasn't an "explosion" as is commonly thought of. This was a car crash when the car exploded. Should be part of the Rainbow Bridge page because it is connected to that, but it really doesn't deserve its own article. Jjazz76 (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - noteworthy incident at the bridge making world headlines for much of a day amid wartime jitters, merge it w/ the Rainbow Bridge article BalletForCattle (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to the bridge itself. WP:NOTNEWS applies, there's little evidence that list will be an event of lasting significance, as other delete commenters have noted. It is notable enough to have a relevant section on the article about the bridge itself, but that's it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It started off as a terrorist attack but soon became a slightly out-of-the-ordinary car crash. Not news. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 10:12, 6 December 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.