Keep Mine collapses that kill 29 people aren't very routine. I don't think point 4 should be read this expansively, this seems notable. Reywas92Talk20:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Only secondary sources contribute to GNG. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator. Death count is not a factor in determining notability. Anyone is welcome to add a history section to Bolaang Mongondow Regency and add a mention of this, or to create a list of mine collapses and add this as an item in the list. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸19:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustainedcontinued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks per the above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I mulled this one over a bit, but I think it clears the standard. This September 2024 article from AP describes this particular collapse as especially bad relative to more recent illegal gold mine collapses in Indonesia. On its own, that strikes me as suggesting there is a cultural memory of this event that was still salient five years after the fact. While the article as written feels like it runs afoul of NOTNEWS, I think the subject is in fact notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This was an awful accident, reading this article was upsetting. This had a lot of news coverage in Indonesia from a brief skim of the references, I also spotted a BBC News report. Based on other people's comments, I feel that this does slightly have greater notability than Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA. I think with some more international news references, fixing the dead link reference and expanding the article a bit, this should be kept. 11WB (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A mine collapse killing 29 has implications for the illegal mine company. The incident was also retrosprectively written about [1][2]. Vanaa1 (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'll have time to run through my own review of the sources today, but as currently documented in our guidelines, WP:ROUTINE is not about an editor's own judgement of the significance of a particular event, but the nature of the coverage of that event, i.e. [...] and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. The referenced AP coverage on this event is 2 sentences, of a total of 28 words: In February 2019, a makeshift wooden structure in an illegal gold mine in North Sulawesi province collapsed partly due to shifting soil. More than 40 people were buried. I'd consider it a stretch to say it counts as an example of an event being re-analyzed afterwards. Certainly, it's awful that it happened, but fatalities unlicensed and illegal mining operations seem unfortunately common in Indonesia and just because it is referenced (as opposed to analysed) by RS after the fact doesn't mean we would be able to write an article on it. (q.v. WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, cf. also Al Jazeerareferencing a 2001 collapse in 2022) Unfortunately, we do not currently have an Illegal mining in Indonesia or similar more general article to smerge or redirect into, which would otherwise be my recommendation. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist to assess Vanaa1's newly-found sources against the notability guidelines mentioned throughout this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]