Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belo Horizonte overpass collapse

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belo Horizonte overpass collapse[edit]

[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)

All the sources in the article, and the ones found in google news are from July 2014. No lasting effects or impacts to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Brazil. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Despite a thorough search I also have not been able to come up with any sort of lasting coverage, and only found sources published at the time of the collapse. I abstain from providing a suggestion as to whether the article should remain or not, I am aware of WP:LASTING, I suppose it's pertinent and appropriate, I'm just not at the point where I fully internalised it yet. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is WP:LASTING coverage in Brazilian sources [1] [2] [3], including a scholar article about it [4]. Skyshiftertalk 12:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well if You take Brazilian sources! Kudoz! --Ouro (blah blah) 20:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources can be from anywhere and written in any language. What matters is whether this topic has significant coverage in independent reliable sources, without further qualification. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Skyshifter, especially as it is the subject of academic coverage (which as far as I'm concerned is the gold standard for event notability). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 11:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough on the net and around for me. Article could be improved and more sources added for my liking know, but the essence is there and that passes GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2024 (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.