Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalfsen train 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The result was Speedy Keep per SK1 - Nom Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 19:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Dalfsen train crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looking at the victims (1 dead, 2 wounded hospitalised, 4 treated on the spot) and the fact that it is only a minor railway line (not a main line) a not notable accident. No disaster whatsoever. The Banner talk 17:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - firstly, I do not claim it to be a "disaster". The Zwolle-Emmen line at 75 km, cannot be called a "minor railway" either. There is more to this than meets the eye at first glance. The crane had waited for one train to pass before crossing, and then started to cross the line before it was struck by a second train. Apparently the crane was only crossing at a very slow speed (less than walking pace?). This was a single-track stretch of line, although double between Zwolle and Dalfsen, presumably the two trains crossed there. The accident has been widely reported in the UK, Netherlands, USA, India etc. WP:GNG is met in spades. Note that the nominator has also !voted for deletion of the equivalent article on nl-Wiki. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is every train accident with one deadly victim suddenly notable? The Banner talk 18:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. However, a lack of, or low number of fatalities ≠ a lack of notability. IMHO, it is the circumstances that give this one notability. I don't know the full facts yet. Was the level crossing on a public or private right of way? In the UK, on a public right of way a telephone is provided so that drivers of very slow vehicles ≥5mph can get permission to cross. Some private crossings are so supplied. Even so, this does not always prevent accidents. Hopefully, details will become clearer in the coming few days. Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I don't usually participate in deletion discussions on this project, so I might be horribly mistaken, but surely notability of an event (or specifically a train accident) isn't measured by the amount of deadly victims? At least not according to WP:GNG. Woodcutterty (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Worldwide coverage Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 17:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG. oknazevad (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets GNG. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, per arguments above. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, per arguments above. Multichill (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Plain news hunting for an encyclopaedia what makes it a free for all to add almost every accident. Completely silly. But I withdraw the nomination. The Banner talk 18:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep easily passes WP:GNG. Deadly rail crashes in the Netherlands are not a common occurrence.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Six since 2000 but excluding accidents between trains and cars. The Banner talk 19:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, six isn't a high number. Thanks for backing up what I said.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:26, 23 February 2016 (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.