Talk:Derna dam collapses

Keep article

This article is a clearly notable event, as it is a man-made disaster that killed thousands of people. This disaster is notable independent of the storm that caused it, because if the dam had been maintained properly it would not have happened. The article on the storm is more than 80 KB, which is enough for it to be split according to Wikipedia's guidelines which can be found here: Wikipedia:Splitting. Many disasters that were caused by other disasters have their own articles, such as the Collapse of the World Trade Center, caused by the September 11 attacks; the 1975 Banqiao Dam failure, caused by Typhoon Nina (1975), and the Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam, caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This should be no exception. It is clear that if this were to happen in a developed country it would have its own article. Narayansg (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Support. Very good point DementiaGaming (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Ya both should post your opininois here too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derna dam collapses @DementiaGaming@Narayansg Daikido (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Daikido: be careful telling people to go to discussions when you know their opinions because it can run afoul of WP:CANVASS. Just a word of caution. Noah, AA^Talk 23:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This is literally the talk page of the article that is under deletion request to which I've referred the editors. How is that canvassing? Daikido (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter where the discussion is being held. If it’s somewhere else, then telling someone to post isn’t appropriate. If the discussion were being held here, simply moving the comments would have sufficed. They have to be able to find the discussion on their own. It comes off as votestacking otherwise since they made their opinion known. Noah, AA^Talk 12:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The guidance in WP:CANVASS says: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

The guidance isn't that editors need to find the discussion. It seems fine to me to direct commenters from the article talk page to the deletion discussion page. I don't think it matters that the commenters have already expressed an opinion. They're being notifed because they commented, not with the intent to influence the deletion discussion. Jsfigura (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

global warming was not the reason for that disaster

Political incompetence and corruption have led to that event taking place. The storm didn`t kill many people in the different countries it went through such as Greece,Turkey and Bulgaria.2003:DA:C73E:D000:E026:825C:AEE0:D813 (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Harmonizing

A discussion was recently closed with the consensus to continue with the split of Storm_Daniel#Derna_dam_failures. Now, there needs to be some harmonizing between the two articles, especially section Storm_Daniel#Libya. Ideally, summary style would be followed. fgnievinski (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)