KeepWP:LASTING is likely satisfied as per the sentence, The tragedy was notable for prompting safety measures in Seoul to prevent future vehicle accidents, and for highlighting the prevalence of traffic accidents caused by senior citizens and about potential programs to promote voluntary withdrawal of their driver's licenses.[6] It was also notable for investigations into derogatory statements left at the makeshift memorial for the tragedy and on online communities, prompting arrests for defamation charges.[7] In addition, the article has 26 textual citations, some from international news sources, and the collision caused 9 deaths with the potential for up to 12.
69.118.230.235 (
talk)
21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep because of legislation per
WP:EFFECT.Comment I disagree with some of the defense of this article. I don't agree that the derogitory remarks or the investigations into them count as notability per
WP:EFFECT. Those are just things that happened, not impact on society/legislation.
What legislation? The article only mentions investigations and an emergency order, none of which is legislation. This occurred less than a week ago. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction which passes legislation that quickly, except in extraordinary circumstances. This is just another news story that will be forgotten about by the time there's any lasting impact. That's the reason for all the Wikilawyering and other maneuvering I see going on, just like any number of other news stories that are (almost) immediately AFD'ed and defended based on the mere presence of X number of citations.
RadioKAOS /
Talk to me, Billy /
Transmissions 15:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not all executive actions are created equal. You cannot seriously be comparing an executive action in the aftermath of WWII by one of the most important figures of the 20th century to this. These orders are also more fragile than robust legislation. It also doesn't help that Korea engages in action theater often after these kinds of incidents.
Delete In my opinion, this document is not described from a neutral point of view, because I think that quoting news that has brought about a community response on the Internet and writing down the Derogatory Remarks category hurts neutrality.
I think you meant to say "the NPOV issues should be fixed, and not contribute to article deletion". I still think the article leans towards draftify/delete, regardless of the POV expressed in the article.
211.43.120.242 (
talk)
00:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply