Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal highway accidents in the Florida Keys


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 18:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

List of fatal highway accidents in the Florida Keys

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

sourced article, but the name explains it all, car accidents are very common and hundreds of thousands are killed every year,Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Delete Secret 19:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I tried to make it clear in the intro the special circumstances that would make accidents in the Florida Keys notable. When a fatal accident occurs, the sole point of land access for nearly a hundred thousand people is blocked off for several hours. This can enormously affect both people who live in the Keys and tourists who travel there for vacations. I do not believe the article violates WP:IINFO because of the lede, which adequately explains the relevancy of this particular list, and why it is above the normal importance of a mere list of auto accidents. The lede, I feel, also answers WP:NOTE. This isn't just a simple list of fatal accidents, but also includes information about their causes and relevancy. I'd be more than happy to make additional explanations as needed. JKBrooks85 19:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you merge the intro paragraph to the Florida Keys article then, it doesn't deserve a page in it's own, especially the deaths. Secret 19:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the full article would really fit into the context of the Florida Keys article by itself. A paragraph, coupled with a link to the list, would be helpful, but I don't think more than that is necessary. As a separate list, a reader could discover the basic information in the Florida Keys article, then access the list for more information about the effect traffic and fatal accidents have in the Florida Keys. After all, if something's important enough to include in a parent article (as you recommend), it's worth creating a separate page if enough information is available -- which it is. JKBrooks85 19:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a section about the Adam Arnold Act in Florida state law, which was inspired by an 11-year campaign following a fatal crash on U.S. 1 in the Florida Keys. JKBrooks85 01:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete While I can appreciate all the effort put into the article, it IS best left as a paragraph in the Florida Keys article. There are many things that are important enough to be listed in a parent article, but more often than not, they do not have the merit to stand as their own article.  Reading the article, it has repeated basically the information from the Florida Keys parent article, and added some information on the traffic accidents.  It's redundent.  Merge or delete. -- Brian ( view my history )/( How am I doing? ) 19:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable juncture of information. Merge any relevant info into the Florida Keys article. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The information about why traffic accidents are so important in this area is useful and deserves to be in the Florida Keys article if it's not already there, but the list of accidents wouldn't be kept for any other location and doesn't deserve to stay just because it's been loosely coupled to useful info &mdash; for all we know, many of these accidents could have occurred off-season or in the early hours of the morning and thus be no more notable than accidents anywhere else in the world. Thomjakobsen 20:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a new section to Florida Keys and included a link to the page. I'm just afraid that because this is notable on a smaller scale than, say, Earth, it's going to be deleted on a WP:IDONTKNOWIT steamroller. I'd further like to object to the suggestions of WP:IINFO violations: this article covers a repeated series of events that have large impacts on the area in which they occur and for the people they involve. Every listing in the article can be backed up with a verifiable news source, and if the article was older than 48 hours, they already would be. It's just a matter of searching the websites of local newspapers. I wouldn't have started this if I thought it would violate rules #2 and #5 of WP:IINFO, and am more than happy to make requested changes to fix problems an editor sees with the article. JKBrooks85 20:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Semi-rhetorical question: if those are your criteria for inclusion, how would you feel about a "List of suicides on the London Underground"? There are around 50 a year, all sourceable, each one causing major disruption on a network which carries more passengers in a day (3 million) than the Keys get visitors in a year.

Thomjakobsen 21:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to create it, I'd fully support them. After all, Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, and there's no reason not to include that information. A list is of marginal utility for someone uninterested in the subject, but plenty of reference works have appendicies for readers seeking more information. This is exactly the same thing, and so would your hypothetical article. Nothing is lost by including this information, and for the person who abolutely needs the information, much can be gained. JKBrooks85 22:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. It doesn't matter whether we know about it or not, JKBrooks85. This just isn't relevant and the list of fatalities violates WP:NOT. If any information is merged to Overseas Highway (best) or Florida Keys then it should be redirected, but the only part that's potentially useful is part of the intro and the "Notability" (sorry, but that title is trying too hard) section. The list should absolutely not be included. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A memorial wasn't my intention. If/when the article is kept, what would you change? JKBrooks85 22:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd delete that unencyclopedic list, for starters. You do realize that when there's an accident on any limited-access highway that people can be trapped for hours? It doesn't matter if you have an alternate route to your destination if you can't get off the highway. --Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't believe Wikipedia is the place to list every single fatal motor vehicle accidents in an area.-- JForget 23:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I understand author's argument that the Florida Keys is served by one road and when there's an accident, it's blocked off... but I don't understand why there's a list of the date of each accident in the past seven years, who died, how old they were, etc. Theoretically, Wikipedia could list the names of auto accident victims on every highway in the country, since it has the space to do so, but one of the many things Wikipedia is not... it's not a memorial.  The intent here is clearly to add entries every time there's a fatality, and to research past incidents.  Someday, someone may create a wiki that memorializes people who died untimely deaths, but we can't open the door to it here.  Mandsford 00:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Perfect example of WP:NOT.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 01:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a notable topic. &mdash; i said 22:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. List of traffic accidents?  Really?  This goes way beyond Wikipedia is not a memorial.   Bur nt sau ce  17:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as reference guides typically list factual information. The World Almanac and Book of Facts, for example, has whole sections on disaster lists.  Since we are not paper, we can expand on our coverage of human knowledge in a more comprehensive manner than a printed reference guide, though.  Someone doing research on highway accidents will find such an article immensely valuable.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the type of information one would turn to an encyclopedia for, not even a paperless one.  Bur nt sau ce  17:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The topic, however, is not one of loosely connected stuff for which we don't have reliable sources. Considering: "The Sunshine State’s heat has been deadly for dozens of Ford drivers whose Firestone tires have disintegrated, making Florida the nation’s leader in Firestone-related deaths".  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That source has nothing to do with the article, it's another region in Florida. Not everything that has a source deserves an article. Secret 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information suits this article pretty well. This is just a trivial list. Wikipedia not being paper, doesn't mean everything should be kept, period. Wikipedia isn't a guide to everything, I think more people need to realize this. RobJ1981 04:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Violates WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOT and WP:NOT.  Of course there exists media coverage of fatal traffic accidents, but such occurences are simply news stories.  This article is merely a list of new stories.  As such, this list does not merit inclusion in this encyclopedia.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  05:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per a dásh of common sense - Studies are generally not reliable, and certainly not studies compiled into unwieldy lists.--WaltCip 17:52, 3 October 2007 (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.