Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Oban derailment


 * 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 per consensus S.G.(GH) ping! 18:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Oban derailment

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A non-fatal train derailment which currently fails Notability (events). Purely news material, unless or until something else emerges, and in the field of rail incident investigations, that's not normally within 7 days. I'll withdraw if some spectacular cause is determined within 7 days, (e.g. a terrorist incident), but if this was a 'routine' derailment, albeit in a bit of an exciting position, I don't see how this article does not fall squarely into the 'wait and see' category of when to write an article. MickMacNee (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a good think this has been written quickly as it gives a good overview of the accident. It may not be the biggest story in the world but it's still big enough to warrant a article in my opinion. Wikipedia's full of articles about fairly insignificant things, another one isn' t going to do any harm, especially when it's on an issue people affected may want to find more out about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.106.179 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There are plenty of sources, though, granted, they are almost without exception news stories, but this seems unusual enough to merit some coverage. Perhaps there's somewhere suitable it can be merged and redirected to? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added one line to the West Highland Line article, that's about all that is justified at this time. MickMacNee (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Article renamed to Falls of Cruachan derailment. MickMacNee (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Fortunately, "No major injuries were reported" in this incident that happened on Sunday evening, June 6.  Mandsford 01:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. At the risk of being a crystal ball, I suspect that this will close the line for at least a week - see section A4 of Notability (railway incidents) (although admittedly, this is a proposed guideline). —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 05:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is closing a line for a week evidence of notability on its own? (rather than an indication of major damage etc) It strikes me that it's only the remote location that means it might take that long to re-open the track, so I wonder what logic there is in saying that if this had happened in a more accessible area leading to quicker re-opening, the accident is somehow less notable, which is what A4 syggests, and which is why maybe it's still not a guideline. MickMacNee (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The incident meets notability criterion B3 anyway - so clear criterion for Keep. Hyperman 42 (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The train didn't just derail, both carriages caught fire. Lack of deaths does not mean lack of notability. Also, a signalling system specifically installed to warn of rockfalls failed to prevent the derailment. The accident has been reported as far away as Australia, showing international coverage and adding to the case for notability. Mjroots (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC) - Update - the rocks fell from a position below the protection of the tripwires. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point on the international coverage of the news (it is just a reprint of the wire story though), however, you seem to be making a giant leap of original research and improper speculation in asserting even before the investigation, that there has been a notable failure of the specifc rock fall warning system in use on this line, and thus by extension, this is already a notable accident because it will lead to major changes (and if this doesn't happen, then per WP:EVENT, it's highly unlikely this is a notable event). Infact, at present, the article does not even include a referenced statement backing up the claim that this accident should have been prevented by that special signalling system, this appears to be the work of editors putting two and two together to make five. Wikinews is the place to go if editors want to engage in investigative journalism, where they can become accredited reporters. As for this being a notable incident despite there being no fatalitites, when reading the sources, I think the severity of the incident has been exaggerated in this article. Scaryness of the situation and wow factor of "Major Incident" declarations aside, in actual fact, we are talking about, from 60 passengers, a few "walking wounded" who were hospitalised "as a precaution", according to the authorities. I think the same is probably true of whether or not fire played a major part in the incident or not, we have some reports that it caught fire, with one passenger describing a "ball of flame" or even an "explosion", yet no reports seem to be saying that fire was either part of the accident, or caused any injuries or any difficulty in evacuation. MickMacNee (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note WP:TWP, WP:UKRail and WP:SCO notified. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The line was meant to be protected by warning systems for a landslide, 8 people went to hospital, heavy recovery equipment will be needed in a remote area, a fairly major road is closed and both carriages caught fire. I think it warrants inclusion in its own right, and also because the record that Wikipedia provides is incomplete and inaccurate if it doesn't record modern accidents that in the past would have been much more deadly.  In summary notable in it's own right for the accident and disruption as well as being neccessary to keep Wikipedia as an accurate record.Dolive21 (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The line itself is signalled using a radio based signalling system, which is due to be replaced by a new european standard (ERTMS) system. This accident may have a bearing on the testing and acceptance (currently underway in Wales) of the proposed system by Network Rail. There are no track circuits or other methods of indicating the presence and location of a train on these systems. Added by Paul P 7 June 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.68.254 (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into Falls of Cruachan railway station, West Highland Line or even Pass of Brander stone signals. Neither the ERTMS trial or lack of track circuits are relevant to the accident and neither confers notability on the accident. The line will be closed while the train is recovered and any track damage repaired, but this incident is not notable enough for a separate article. Any extended closure will be due to the remoteness of location rather than the seriousness of the incident. As far as I can tell from news reports, the only thing that seems to have burned is fuel, possibly from punctured tanks, and the fire either did not spread to the main body of the train, or was not sustained by the train (non flammable materials?). Photographs suggest that the train has not suffered significant fire damage, and there's no reports of burn injuries that I am presently aware of. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 10:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, if it were true that the apparent failure of the specific rock fall detectors was a cause of this accident, and the investigation did lead to changes in the safety systems, then it would per normal convention, become a notable accident in of itself. But this is a vague area as to how much change it needs to be, because there isn't a single rail accident report ever that does not make some reccomendations. However, as I said above, it is improper to write the article when there is simply no evidence that this is the case at all yet, and all we have at this time is an article about a non-fatal derailment caused by a landslide. MickMacNee (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is now evidence from the train driver confirming that the train hit boulders. But in any case, this is exactly what one would expect in this location. When I first saw the news item last night, simply saying "Glasgow-Oban train derailed", I immediately thought "Pass of Brander"... and it was.  Incidentally, this is not a normal landslide (slippage of a bulk quantitiy of earth); the problem with this location is vast numbers of individual granite boulders scattered over the slopes of Ben Cruachan which rise up to 3000 feet above the line, which periodically roll down either individually or in small groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperman 42 (talk • contribs)


 * Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS 129.11.77.198 (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Very strong keep as it is the worst derailment in Scotland this year Ggoere (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, May be notable for the moment but no chance of making it into a full article no chance of raising to B-class or GA status delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaponbb7 (talk • contribs)
 * With respect, that's quite a weak argument. We have many thousands of articles on notable subjects that have no hope of ever gaining GA status. If we were delete everything that would never make GA class, we'd be deleting thousands upon thousands of articles- to quote WP:GA, "Adding good and featured articles and lists gives a total of 13,904 articles (about 1 in 239)", so by your standards, we'd be deleting 90-something% of our articles. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the GA criteria have nothing to do with notability. However, on a meta-level, a GA is expected to be - 1. Well written, 2. Accurate and verifiable, 3. Comprehensive, 4. Neutral, 5. Stable, 6. Contain images if possible. I cannot think of any reason why we would ever keep articles that have no hope of meeting these criteria. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, let's see now: Well written - check! Accurate and verifiable - check! Comprehensive (as it can be at the moment) - Check! Neutral - Check! Stable (for current news type articles) - Check! Contain images if possible - Check! . Looks like I've just got my 7th GA! . Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As a GA reviewer myself, I can assure you that's much more to it than that. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as this accident involved quite a significant number of people and resources. Indeed, this continues. As far as I know, this will be quite a lengthy line closure and investigation, which will cause widespread disruption. I know some people doubt if "major incident" status means it's notable, and although of course it does not automatically mean that, remember that such incidents are quite rare in Scotland especially involving trains. The emergency services and the media don't react like this to a matter of insignificance. Macintosher (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as its actually a well-written article regardless of whether the accident is particularly notable in general. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a good article and this location is of historic importance as being the one in most danger in the whole of the British Isles from rockfalls - the line runs below the slopes of Ben Cruachan which is dotted with prehistoric granite boulders. Hence the unique warning wire screen which was installed soon after the line was opened in 1880. There have been previous derailments here for the same reason, and it is likely that this will not be the last.  The latest incident is clearly relevant to the special safety measures, which already have a separate article as a unique feature of British railways.  While a shorter article might have sufficed, now there is a good one in some detail, I see no reason to remove or shorten it. Hyperman 42 (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unique/Extraordinary != Notable. And much of what you've said here hasn't been covered by the soures about this accident anyway (I would like confirmation for example that "this location is of historic importance as being the one in most danger in the whole of the British Isles from rockfalls"). Now that we know from Network Rail that the unique Pass of Brander system was not designed to prevent this incident, which has otherwise been a minor derailment, then where is the claim of independent notability of this accident, over any other similar one? Unless or until there is proof this accident itself causes significant changes, then it fails WP:EVENT. If it is simply interesting in the whole field of rockfalls and British railways, it can be covered elsewhere quite adequately. MickMacNee (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I must say there are an awful lot of bad !votes going on here, on both sides. The heart of the question is not whether it is well written or not, or whether it has potential to become a GA or whatever, but whether it is notable. Here the guidance should be WP:EVENT, which emphasises that to become more than routine there should be long lasting coverage or precipitate changes to the way things are done and so on. We have no way of knowing whether that will be the case at the moment. None of the reports I have read so far even seem to mention anything to do with signalling or anything else so it is way to early to be able to tell yet. At the moment it is a news story, and not even a major one at that - many more stories have received much greater coverage today. To become more than just a news story and justify an article we need much stronger evidence to explain why this is basically prima facie notable - at the moment it is all based on conjecture. As such I must say delete. (Bear in mind that I have written another article on a train incident where no one was even injured. However, in that case I had the luxury of writing a few years after the event with the benefit of numerous in depth sources which analysed what had happened, not just a flurry of newspaper reports.) Quantpole (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Incubate or userfy for now. At present it marginally fails WP:EVENT; however, the chance of this changing in the near future seems large enough to justify incubation or userfication pending the appearance of longer-term coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Alzarian, there's still 5 days to go before the AfD expires, which may be enough time for further details to emerge. I have the ability to userfy the article myself if it gets deleted. Expect the RAIB to take a year to 18 months to publish its report. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mm, fair point. I'll be happy to change my vote to keep if more coverage emerges. Alzarian16 (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr: It's well-written. It's well-sourced. It's notable enough that several media outlets think it's worth reporting. What else do you want? I know I'm going to get a bunch of WP:ALPHABETSOUP thrown at me for this, but fuck it: Keep. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 18:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - many sources covering it, and that's before the specialist press get to it. Seems notable to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:109PAPERS. This is getting news coverage, because it is a news event. As for specialist sources, I think we all know that they cover any incident, 80% of which Wikipedia would never cover, in great detail. That's their role, it is not Wikipedia's role. MickMacNee (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:109PAPERS is a proposed guideline. Mjroots (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And most of its content gets wide support, and is pretty much duplicated by WP:EVENT anyway. WP:ATA is an essay, it doesn't mean it is not widely considered as basic good practice at AFD. MickMacNee (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What is this I don't even. And Wikipedians get all surprised when good contributors are running for the hills. Enough. Here goes:
 * This isn't notable. I think a certain breed of Wikipedians think that if they repeat this enough that it'll become true. Respected media outlets like the BBC around the world thought that this was important enough to merit reporting. Who are we to argue?
 * "This is a news event." Well, duh, yes it is; stick a template on it and move on. Every event in history would have, at some point, been a news event of sorts (and if it wasn't generating a bunch of news articles you just know that the procedurebators here would AFD it for "fails WP:RS and WP:V" or whatever. Fine, roughly six people are going to care about it in five years' time, but isn't that a damn good reason to keep it? You know, if you think that we should stop including things, however well sourced, just for being obscure then well, Citizendium is over there, seeya! For all its faults, the great thing about Wikipedia is that it does cover obscure things like this, and in many cases is the only organised (let alone well-sourced!) collection of information about them.
 * "This is a breaking event and we don't know all the facts yet. Yup, and I can think of other current events about which we do not know all the facts just yet that people don't seem to be in a huge hurry to delete (in before WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS + someone nominating that one for deletion). It's not entirely complete for now, but who cares? Fortunately, this is a wiki, and as new information becomes available we can include it into the article. Hooray for the wiki encyclopedia!
 * LOL. Yes, I am told President Obama is due to visit the crash site next week. Turn it in will you. You could have simply said 'keep - sourced, well written' without including all that other irrelevant stuff tbh. Still, I see you registered in 2005, and that screed has 'Wikipedia values of 2005' stamped all over it. Only it's 2010 now, and the ideas about what constitues notability beyond news values have moved on considerably. Wikipedia is no longer the dumping ground for anything and everything that is simply sourceable. If anything, rather than editors here needing to move to Citizendium, maybe a few need to move to Wikinews, or need to start focussing on the glaring recentism in topics like this - note as you will the paltry details of the similar incidents on this exact line that Wikipedia has. I'm open to quality arguments to keep the article, but 'BBC reported it' and 'it's not doing any harm, stop harming Wikipedia's mojo' are not quality arguments, particularly not when the deletion rationale is WP:EVENT. As for the 'Wikipedia keeps obscure stuff' angle, well, in the case of railway incidents, no, it does not, and whether this article is kept or not, the vast majority of railway incidents that are reported will never have articles. Not in a million years. And rightly so. MickMacNee (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * missingthepoint.jpg. I wasn't saying that this event is as important as the BP oil spill. My point was that saying an article should be deleted because it documents a current event, the consequences of which are quite unclear, is stupid. Whine all you want about "glaring recentism", but you know, I can think of a whole lot of stuff about which I wished people had written about in great detail back when it happened. I take the long view, and history will not look kindly on you if you think that "this happened recently and we're not totally sure about all the facts just yet so we shouldn't be documenting it".

"[I]t's not doing any harm" is a perfectly good argument, actually a really good one thank you for keeping a well-sourced, well-researched article. "[S]top harming Wikipedia's mojo" -- well, if by that you mean "don't stop Wikipedia being as great as it is for information on obscure subjects", well sure. I'm happy with that. Hell, give me the t-shirt that says "reading about obscure stuff you never even knew you cared about is AWESOME". Maybe that's just the "Wikipedia values of 2005" speaking right there. You know, that whole idea that if someone is writing good and informative and well-sourced and informative articles about whatever subject, then that's a damn good thing for everyone. I'll take those values over bureaucratic deleting-shit-just-because-we-can any day. Hey, ignore me. I've gotta go tell some kids to get off my lawn, so I'll leave it here, k? :) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh it's good to have you back Lewis :) -mattbuck (Talk) 20:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. It's not me you need to worry about. You can say what you like in here, you can shout from the rooftops about how it should be the primary purpose of Wikipedia to document the vital details of every zebra that was ever born, it doesn't make your actual argument any more relevant to the reason for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't flatter yourself; I'll lose exactly three seconds of sleep tonight worrying about you. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 22:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise. MickMacNee (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not a exact news report, it's more of a description of events. Kiko4564 (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a significant incident within the context of Scotland, evidenced by the (for this early stage) detailed reporting in The Scotsman and others, and the impact it has had on both the A85 road and the West Highland Line itself. Whilst there were thankfully no fatalities, there may still be safety or operational related outcomes from the investigation which can only bolster and expand an already useful article as they become available. A brief mention of the incident is useful in both the Pass of Brander Stone Signals article and the West Highland Line article but any more would upset the balance of those articles. However, from these brief mentions there should be an opportunity for interested Wikipedia readers to find out more about the incident. This article, where further information can be gathered and expanded, is the place for that. Nick Ottery (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:INTERESTING, WP:USEFUL and WP:CRYSTAL. The Scotsman etc are reporting this in detail because it has news value. But frankly, even just looking at the latest titbits added today, the fact that you need a big crane to clear a train which is in a difficult position, or that the A85 wasn't built to support such large vehicles, while it might be interesting and newsworthy (some might say bloody obvious, but that's by the by), it is not, and never will be, of encyclopoedic value, in the way you suggest. This is just a fact, and given the passage of time, it will become more and more obvious as the years pass, which is something WP:EVENT was written to cover. If this article were to be editted to remove the daily news crap, to cut it down to the encyclopoedic matters of record, it would be barely a section or two long, easily accomodated elsewhere, while not breaking WP:EVENT so blatantly. MickMacNee (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So writing about things in great detail (while we still can!) is against MickMacNee policy. Hooray! Obvious? Obvious to who? Obvious to someone who isn't an engineer and doesn't know the area in intimate detail? Obvious to someone in 20 years' time who might want be interested in derailments that happened in their area? Obvious to someone in 50 years' time researching the history of a road in which they're interested? Seriously dude, stop. Just stop. And for your future reference, if you're going to try and look more intelligent than you really are: that's encyclopaedic. You're welcome. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 22:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious enough to anybody who realises that WP:EVENT is not some half-witted bollocks I just invented yesterday, for the sole purpose of stopping people looking for interesting stuff in 20 years time. If you've got such a massive problem with the arguments I am advancing here, and it really appears you do, then I suggest you go and try and get that guideline deleted, because unless or until you do, I won't be convinced by your ranting and raving and blind insistance that Wikipedia is something it isn't, or that the nasty man trying to enforce policy here should just stop being so MEAN and leave the poor defenceless article ALONE!!!!. MickMacNee (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note WP:TIS informed. Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lewis Collard!'s well reasoned opinion.--Milowent (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Hyperman 42. --John (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2010 (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.