Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Tribistovo poisoning

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. Most editors believe that this meets WP:NEVENT. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 11:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Tribistovo poisoning

[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)

A very sad event but not one which passes the notability critieria in WP:EVENT. None of the suggested indicators appear to be met. Domestic deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning are unfortunately not particularly rare, even on this scale. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cerberon-900 (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:JUSTAVOTE. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Domestic accidents of this kind may not be rare but they usually don't result in a declaration of a national day of mourning in two countries. Also, there are plenty of reliable sources covering the event (see AP, ABC, DW, Euronews, RTL, Washington Post etc.) and the article looks to be in very good shape. I don't know how this ridiculous deletion request helps to build an encyclopedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you read WP:AGF. We accept that plenty of things which receive press coverage are non-notable (see WP:FART) and this is already dealt with at some length in the guidance at WP:EVENTCRITERIA which states, among other things, "[r]outine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine." I do not personally see how a serious case can be made on almost all of these indicators and I'd add that I think it smacks of WP:RECENTISM. The quality of the current article is entirely irrelevant. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron: I think you're making a case out of nothing and your rules-lawyering doesn't really support your view. Had the quoted text from WP:EVENTCRITERIA been applicable to such articles in a way you're trying to interpret it, then this, this, this, this, this and hundreds of others articles documenting shootings with no enduring significance, because the US did absolutely nothing to restrict access to guns that would reduce the frequency of such events, would have been deleted long time ago. If this is not enough because the shootings are of a different kind, then pay attention that we have this, this, this, this and hundreds (or even thousands) of train derailments, fires, explosions and other accidents that happened due to a human error. Shall we delete all of them or, to phrase it better, would you create a deletion request for each of them? And please note that none of the linked events resulted in a declaration of a national day of mourning in any country. It's clear as day that the existence of the article is well justified and I wish you good luck in persuading people that it's not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please WP:AGF rather than accusing me of "rules-lawyering"; I also have Wikipedia's best interests in mind, even if you do not agree with me. I personally think that a lot of the articles you have profiled are indeed non-notable or better dealt with in list-form but they are not at issue here. As I mentioned before, carbon monoxide poisoning is certainly sad but not particularly uncommon. To cite only one example, 10 people died and 200 people were hospitalised with it in Algeria in 2020 (source 1). Our article on the subject states that 400 people die from it each year in the US and that "it is the most common type of fatal poisoning in many countries." Other than a no-doubt short-lived flurry of press coverage, what makes this particular incident notable? Has it led to a raft of new legislation on the subject or political commitments? A serious popular movement? I am open to being convinced, but your argument above is pure whataboutism. As I mentioned below, days of national mourning are indicative of notability but are hardly proof of it and could easily be addressed by a single line in the article Bosnia and Herzegovina–Croatia relations if necessary. I personally think the bias towards recentism is one of the scourges of Wikipedia. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think your criteria are a bit elitist and highly impractical. Firstly, the number of deaths from fatal poisoning in the United States or any other country is completely irrelevant, especially since the accident occurred in a region with no recent record of similar events (at least not something that received traction as this one). It's like arguing that shootings in peaceful regions are not notable because they're frequent in other parts of the world. Secondly, this is an event that garnered international reactions by the main political figures in the region. Thirdly, it's too early to discuss about new legislation even though there was significant political commitment but that's not a decisive criterion to classify something as non-notable. At the end, the fact that the accident recieved high depth of coverage in reliable sources and got international reactions by political leaders in the region is enough. The additional criteria you're arguing about are not necessary to judge whether a stand-alone article should exist. Wikipedia simply doesn't work that way.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elitist, seriously? I have heard everything now. As for your third point, I have literally quoted you guidance to the exact opposite effect. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough and thanks for your time to discuss. We've both stated our views and now let's see what do others think.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really have to agree with Kiril here. I don't doubt that Brigade Piron has good intentions but you are looking at this incorrectly. Eg - you point to the fact that Algeria had 10 carbon monoxide deaths over an entire year. Algeria has a population of over 42 million people. Bosnia has only around 3 million people, and they experienced 8 carbon monoxide deaths in one single incident. Looking at this proportionately, it is much more notable than you make it out to be. In one day, a tiny town of around 10,000 people has recorded almost as many carbon monoxide deaths as a massive country of 42 million people sees over an entire year. That's definitely notable.

If 8 students were shot tomorrow in a school shooting in the US (heaven forbid), there would most definitely be an article written about it, even though school shootings are extremely common and are very quickly forgotten in America. The only standout shootings according to your criteria would be the Columbine High School Massacre and the Virginia Tech shooting. These were particularly noteworthy since they garnered a lot more media attention than usual. However, smaller and less impactful shootings take place every year in the US that still receive a dedicated Wikipedia article.

Yes there are many deaths every year around the world, but proportionate to population size, this event is quite noteworthy. As I mentioned below, it has already garnered political attention. Despite ongoing political divisions, the entire Balkan region has come together and offered support over this tragedy. Bosnia has not declare many days of national mourning since the terrible war crimes that plagued the region in the 90s. Peace. Domiy (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with everything user Kiril Simeonovski said. –Pjesnik21 (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As others have pointed out, the event has received widespread media coverage from countless international sources and has led to declarations of national days of mourning in 2 countries, notably in Bosnia and Herzegovina which is rarely united as a nation. The event will have a lasting impact on the entire region due to the concentrated loss of young human life in an otherwise safe or quiet area. 2001:8003:323B:1900:D51E:E88E:9AD1:6F8C (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds a bit like WP:CRYSTAL. For the record, I'd add that days of national mourning are not particularly rare in many countries. A very cursory search in Google reveals that, in November and December 2020, they were held in Argentina (3 days), Uruguay (3 days), Ghana (7 days), Serbia (3 days), and South Africa (5 days). There are probably others. I'd be interested to know when the last time Bosnia held such a day? —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A national day of mourning being declared in 2 separate countries is uncommon. Bosnia has not declared many days of national mourning since the war, namely because the country is socially divided between 3 different nationalities/religious groups. Hence, for a small town to garner nation-wide unity for a day of mourning makes it notable.

Hope this helps.

I think the article stands on its own as it is (although it will require a professional copy-edit). Local broadcasters have already began to mention the political repercussions that will be faced due to the deaths. While it is too early to consider these, they will almost certainly make the article much more noteworthy than it already is. 2001:8003:323B:1900:D51E:E88E:9AD1:6F8C (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP: I do understand your argument, even though I note that it is not mentioned in the actual article. However, surely the best way to deal with it would be a few lines at Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina#Inter-ethnic relations instead of a stand-alone article? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. The article will also benefit from citing sources in English so that readers can easily navigate to external content without translation. But this stuff should be discussed on the article's talk page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because I think it's rather enough rare accident when dozen of young persons died at once from a badly working house heater, at least in Western Europe it looks present-day to be extremely rare. The news about the accident were numerously presented on the web world-wide. PoetVeches (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This didn't happen in W Europe; it happened in SE Europe. Jim Michael (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A dozen deaths, PoetVeches? What do you know that the rest of us do not? —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron: I usually vote for keep, because if there are no certain criteria, I always vote for keep, but anyway very thank you for your patrolling. For me, this article has some encyclopedic value, because I study Balkans as an amateur writer, so I thought this one has an encyclopedic value, although maybe not so much, partly agree with you... I tried once to delete articles about chocolates, sorta Snickers or Mars, and people said the chocolates were terribly important value for Wikipedia, but I thought it was just an advert of junk food :) PoetVeches (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep As other fellow editors already stated, the event has received a lot of media coverage from domestic and international sources, presidents of neighbouring countries reacting to it as well. The main reasons being that the people and high ranking officials of Bosnia, as a partly-divided country, standing together and mourning the loss of eight young lives. Also because of the countries fairly low population, 8 deaths in a day is quite a lot. Also keep in mind that this kind of events rearly to almost never happen in Bosnia nor as of lately in Europe as a whole. Kirbapara (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2021 (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.