Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Chemins de Fer de Provence 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 Chemins de Fer de Provence derailment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

per WP:NOTNEWS, everything in the news doesnt need a WP page. No indication of lasting notability beyond about a few days. As an aside, the title indicates the province has been derailed.Lihaas (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep - firstly, the cause of this accident is an extremely rare occurrence. Trains normally run into rocks that have fallen onto the line and are derailed (q.v. Falls of Cruachan derailment). In this accident, the rock came tumbling down the mountain side and collided with the train, derailing it; +/- 10 seconds and there wouldn't be a story to tell. That the accident occurred on a heritage railway makes it even rarer. "Only" two deaths does not detract from the case for notability here. IMHO, this accident would have been as notable had all survived. As for the "no indication of lasting notability" argument, it is far too early to tell, but again, IMHO, the rarity of the event gives it notability. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC) P.S. Title used is that of the operator, as it was initially unclear exactly where the accident had occurred. Article can be moved to another title at some point once this AfD has been closed. Mjroots (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What source indicates this as exceptionally important/unique/notable? Why cant it go on to the article o the operator?Lihaas (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My claim is that this type of accident is rare, not unique. I don't know of any other accidents where a train has been clobbered off the line by falling rocks, but that don't mean that there aren't any, which is why I'm not claiming "uniqueness" here. That may come out in the coming days. Accident is already mentioned in the article on the page about the operator, as a quick check would have shown. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that it is rare and unusual, that argument can only be used if a WP:RS claims it is rare. AadaamS (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. Plenty of coverage. Reasonable to allow the article to develop. As noted as WP:RAPID, there's no rush to delete articles about breaking news events. If it turns out that this story dies down, then merger can be discussed later. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - per long standing precedent, fatal train (and plane) accidents in industrialized countries are usually notable. Furthermore, nominating it now is poor form and pointless. Discussions in the immediate aftermath of a story are unproductive because no one can assess the impact properly and thus almost always close in no consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly unusual, too early to know anything about lasting notability. Edgepedia (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My thought is that as it's so unlikely to have been a random event, it's much more likely that the passage of the train caused the rock to move. But we need the official report for that. Edgepedia (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge If the page remains at its current size, I don't think the information ought to be deleted outright, it shoud be made a section here: Chemins de Fer de Provence. The AfD page should then redirect to that section. AadaamS (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Bad title. Hey, people have already decided "Keep", I'd just like to point out that sources don't use that title, and it's an exceptionally unlikely search term. To the extent that this title was chosen according to some guideline, that guideline should be deprecated. bobrayner (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * - title has been sent to naughty corner for 15 mins. Seriously, initial reports said "between Dignes and Nice", which are the best part of 100 miles apart. Hence I chose to use the operator when creating the article safe in the knowledge that the article can be moved once a better title becomes available. Suggest Annot derailment might be a good one, but article can't be moved until AfD is closed as it messes up links. Mjroots (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Accident has wide coverage enough --Noel baran (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wide coverage doesn't mean its fit for a WP page on itself. Lots of daily events do. That is exactly precident what NOTNEWS is about.Lihaas (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Fatal railway accidents such as this one are in general subject to considerable and lasting coverage, and not as routine news events. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Fatal rail crashes, esp. in Western countries, are easily notable events.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2014 (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.