Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Taconic State Parkway 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 Taconic State Parkway crash
AfDs for this article: 


 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I just don't see what makes this so 'special'. It looks like from reading, it was just a woman who didn't know when to stop and a loyal husband stuck in denial. How is that any different from the many tragic stories that occur every day on our roads? The media coverage is not trivial, but it just a news item. No lasting notability; this story will just be replaced by the next tragedy. We aren't FOX News. For those in need of bluelinks, WP:NOTNEWS should cover it - there is not lasting notability beyond the sensational news reports (now two months old). \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: While this was a big story in the States, lasting importance has not been demonstrated yet.  Perhaps it will be, so its the kind of thing I'd like to suggest shouldn't be deleted yet (oh look at all those references someone worked on!), but I'm not thinking of good arguments to support that view. --Milowent (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Firmly passes notability criteria due to widespread, sustained media coverage. As in the previous AFD, comments to the effect that we should delete the article because media attention to this incident will fade quickly or has faded are just baffling, because the media has reported every new development since the crash happened three months ago (the article hasn't been updated accordingly, but we all know that that's not a reason to delete it). Recent coverage includes:
 * October 9: The D.A.'s handling of the case becomes an issue in her campaign for re-election.
 * October 9: Victim's lawyer questions Diane Schuler's family's behavior and announces intention to sue.
 * October 8: Crash's sole survivor returns home from hospital (covered by several news outlets)
 * October 6: New police tapes released from the day of the accident (following release of a previous tape on October 2)
 * The crash is also still mentioned routinely in articles about other crashes, or about drunk driving and alcoholism, particularly among mothers (see this Google News Search for articles mentioning "Diane Schuler" in the past month), and was the catalyst for a Sept. 30 Dr. Phil episode on the subject of "Drunk Driving Moms." It's also worth noting that Governor Paterson was prompted by the crash to introduce stronger anti-drunk-driving legislation in August. Propaniac (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Ordinarily a motor vehicle accident with multiple fatalities and apparent alcohol intoxication as a cause would be a news story and nothing more. Wikipedia is not a repository of everything that makes the news. This one rises a bit because of the family's highly publicized denials of the implications of toxicology reports, and because the governor and legislators cite it in proposing stiffer penalties for driving drunk. (Of course, it is difficult to punish a dead driver). The case got covered beyond the usual coverage given a multivictim car wreck. (Are there personal injury lawsuits yet to be tried, where expert witnesses could hold forth on further data analysis and alternate explanations?) Edison (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From the second October 9 article I cited above, it appears that such a lawsuit is planned, but I don't believe it has been filed yet. Propaniac (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have to say keep for this. It's well sourced and has had significant media coverage, passing the greatest of article qualifications: WP:N and WP:V. As for WP:NOTNEWS, this one is right there on the line. I have to thus err on the side of preserving information, so keep. --Triadian (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has received very significant ongoing media attention meeting WP:N. Has become a reference point for other drunk driving fatal crashes, e.g.,  from just one day before this nomination was made. Ongoing coverage of the incident continues - this news report for example is far less than "2 months old", further confirming its notability. Rlendog (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And, per Propaniac, this crash has also become a political campaign issue, further demonstrating its notability. Rlendog (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2009 (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.