Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 British Columbia avalanche

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The result was Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) --Kyle1278 18:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 British Columbia avalanche

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable disaster, Wikipedia is not the news. For some time this looked like there may have been many deaths; happily the missing have all been accounted for. Two deaths and four significant injuries (+26 other injured) are not enough to make this a notable event in my opinion. If the result is delete, there is also a redirect at 2010 Revelstoke avalanche. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn due to potential change/enactment of legislation as a result of the event. Thus, while the avalanche itself isn't what would normally be considered notable, subsequent events seem to have increased its notability. At least we should consider keeping the article until more info is known. Although I am an admin, I'm not going to close this as I'm involoved. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{CB-delete}} Agree with nom that WP:NOTNEWS applies here.~~ A summary of US avalanches (so not including Canada) indicates avalanches with 1-3 fatalities are unfortunately routine. Ikluft (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- {{CB-neutral}} Based on User:HJ Mitchell's comment about debate over possible new regulations of snowmobiling, I found a reference (which I added to the article). I'll back off from the delete position for now since this story seems to be growing legs which could affect its notability. But it hasn't necessarily earned notability yet. I'll observe the development of references today, or lack thereof. Ikluft (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not every avalanche is notable. Very few actually. Fails WP:NOTNEWS, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:NOTNEWS applies, this was a minor avalanche. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article was created in good faith and it was entirely possible that more fatalities were going to emerge at one point, but they didn't and this event is not notable in itself, unfortunately. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The government of British Columbia is reportedly planning stricter regulations for snowmobiles as a result of this incident, suggesting that it may have long-term implications. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on this mention, I found one source for that story. Do you have others? Ikluft (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like this nomination is overly early, since events are still unfolding, like politicians making various noises. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2010 (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.