Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Ingoldmells bus crash


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 01:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

2004 Ingoldmells bus crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Complete failure of WP:NOT. A car crash with 5 people is the definition of an indescriminate collection of information and an utter and complete failure of NOTNEWS. The question of notability doesn’t matter as something cannot be notable if it fails NOT, regardless of the sourcing and coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete- as per nomination. Falls under NOTNEWS.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article was initially nominated for PROD, which I reverted because it does meet WP:EVENT for both depth and duration of coverage. Per discussion with TonyBallioni on their talk page, if the consensus of this AfD is to delete then some amendment to WP:EVENT may be warranted. Marianna251TALK 00:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to amend EVENT and the PROD was fine, but no problem having the discussion here. Guidelines can’t trump policies, and this is a NOT failure. Passage of EVENT but failure of NOT means it gets deleted. Notability is only one of fourteen reasons for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has enough references. The event may not seem important to us but it probably was to all involved, not only the five who were killed. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas 01:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Lack of references is not an issue here, its notability. And the event was important to all involved, I'm sure it was. Just like birthdays, weddings, and anniversaries are important to all involved as well.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I debated on whether or not to vote, but having reread WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, I think this article's inclusion is warranted. WP:NOTNEWS focusses on breaking events and routine news, basically to stop Wikipedia being treated as another news outlet for stories that are here one day and gone the next. This event carried on for months (WP:PERSISTENCE), was reported on by national news outlets (WP:DEPTH), resulted in safety changes in the area and is still sometimes referenced in the news (WP:LASTING). The article could do with some cleanup and an update, but all combined, I don't think it fails WP:NOT at all. (And just to be picky, it was a bus crash involving pedestrians, not a car crash, and involved far more than 5 people - 5 was the number of deaths.) Marianna251TALK 02:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is routine news. The BBC covered it because it also covers local and regional news around the UK. CNN regularly covers Greyhound crashes in-depth over time, but it is still routine coverage, and no, it involved 5 people: we count tragedies by the number of deaths, that might not be right, but that is how events such as these are measured. I feel bad for their families, but this was a minor incident and if it is included on Wikipedia literally ever local car crash would get on. There is nothing at all special about this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, this was covered at a national level by the BBC and by other UK national news outlets, not local/regional. The BBC website sorts all UK-based stories into its originated region, regardless of its prominence, e.g. Milly Dowler's murder was always reported as a Surrey story by the BBC and online links will go to its regional section, even though it was a major national story. I'm not sure if I'm missing a guideline on what constitutes routine coverage; WP:NOTNEWS' example of routine coverage is reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities and WP:EVENT's definition of routine coverage is Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out, which doesn't fit this case any more than the 7/7 bombings would. I can't see anything in the essay on run-of-the-mill events that would fit this either. I'm not familiar with CNN, so I can't comment on its reporting, but car and bus crashes are not routine national coverage in the UK. (Ironically, a major crash is currently the BBC's main headline, but that kind of proves my point in that a) it's a front page headline, but the story itself is listed under England -> Local news -> Regions -> Birmingham & West Country, and b) it's the first national headline of its kind that I've seen since 2014 Glasgow bin lorry crash - three years between similar events hardly counts as everyday!) Marianna251TALK 13:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is run of the mill news, none of what you said addresses that point. The Glasgow article you cite was kept right after it came out, but it likely needs to be sent to AfD again. Routine car accidents are not appropriate for Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think what you're getting at (apologies if I've misread) is that most vehicle collisions reported in the news are a kind of flash in the pan, with a brief high level of coverage and mourning but otherwise not anything out of the ordinary and thus don't belong in an encyclopaedia. I agree with you on that; what I don't agree is that this event is one of those occasions. Routine car crashes, even fatal ones, don't result in inquests, prosecution of public service providers and public safety changes. It would be ordinary and not for Wikipedia if not for the lasting impact, but with that, I can't see that it fails WP:NOTNEWS or WP:ROUTINE unless you're going to argue that all vehicle collisions are not appropriate for an encyclopaedia by definition, which is silly. This article is definitely at the lower end of the scale, but I really do think it was something out of the ordinary and that it is an appropriate topic for an encyclopaedia. It could be merged into another article that covers events like these, if there is one, though. It doesn't necessarily need its own article if there's somewhere more appropriate. Marianna251TALK</b> 16:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Lasting news coverage and changes in safety regulations resulted. Buttons0603 (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, Comment - I am also slightly concerned, from looking at the article history, that User:TonyBallioni appears to have nominated the article for deletion as a result of one of their previous edits, which merely proposed deletion, being reverted by User:Marianna251 (as is allowed in the case of proposed deletions; user gave a reason for reverting, too). I'm not sure if this may jeopardise the AfD or not but I feel it's a relevant point. Buttons0603 (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Buttons0603, this is the normal process when a PROD is reverted and someone thinks it still should be deleted (which I still quite strongly do). TonyBallioni (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if it wasn't normal procedure, I left TonyBallioni a message suggesting he take this to AfD if he felt it was warranted, so I have no concerns. Face-smile.svg <b style="border:1px solid #000; color:#000; background-color:#CBD4E4; padding: 0px 2px;">Marianna251</b><b style="padding:2px; font-size:80%;">TALK</b> 18:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It was a notable and significant event. Notice, for example, that we have 2017 Washington train derailment highlighted on the main page currently even though only 3 people died in that transport accident. NOTNEWS is clearly NOTLAW. Andrew D. (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Referring to WP:NOT is disingenuous, since it is nothing of the sort defined in the policy subsections, so it passes it. Clearly meeting WP:EVENT, multiple sources covering it along a reasonable period of time. -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 21:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I have reread WP:INDISCRIMINATE for more than I should, just to find how this article is indiscriminate collection but I can't figure out that. But I did find it passes WP:GNG for being significantly reported about in reliable sources; BBC, Telegraph, and Skegness Standard. Routine coverages arenot included in encyclopedia but this one is not routine due to certain defining facts associated with it: 1- It was described as the deadliest Bus accident in the UK since after one which occurred in 1993 (this was documented by reliable sources), this clearly differentiates it from all other Bus accidents in UK that occurred between 1993-2003, except if we are to assume no single accident occurred during these 20 years, which is outright implausible. 2-.  It passes WP:EFFECT. Although it occurred in mid 2004 it continued receiving coverage up to end of 2005. And directly affected the behavior of large number of people (who were previously not connected to the accident) and this resulted in protests, and the protest itself received media coverage. 3- It again well passes WP:PERSISTENCE because of ensuing litigation (which is not found in ''real routine and non notable accidents) –Ammarpad (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - the case made for retention by Ammarpad and others is a sound one. This was a significant event in the UK. Dunarc (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.