Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Bolaang Mongondow mine collapse

2019 Bolaang Mongondow mine collapse

[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) 17:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Indonesia. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mine collapses that kill 29 people aren't very routine. I don't think point 4 should be read this expansively, this seems notable. Reywas92^Talk 20:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Only secondary sources contribute to GNG. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator. Death count is not a factor in determining notability. Anyone is welcome to add a history section to Bolaang Mongondow Regency and add a mention of this, or to create a list of mine collapses and add this as an item in the list. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Reywas92. I'm familiar with mine collapses in general; this one was significant. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable accident with lasting effect. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 18:11, 27 June 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) 08:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I mulled this one over a bit, but I think it clears the standard. This September 2024 article from AP describes this particular collapse as especially bad relative to more recent illegal gold mine collapses in Indonesia. On its own, that strikes me as suggesting there is a cultural memory of this event that was still salient five years after the fact. While the article as written feels like it runs afoul of NOTNEWS, I think the subject is in fact notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]