Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M40 Minibus 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 No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:51Z 

M40 Minibus Crash

 * — (View AfD)

Non notable road accident. The law change mentioned happened 8 years after this event, which had no influence on the law.(http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_506857.hcsp) Nuttah68 15:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete unless sourced, and the sources show (or at least suggest) that this was a factor in the law being changed. It might be possible to write a decent article about it, but it seems unlikely. Trebor 15:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The article doesn't show that this particular crash is the reason for changes in the law. There are also hundreds of fatal car crashes every single day, they are not notable for an encyclopedia. --The Way 20:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Car accident. Tonytypoon 02:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Pan Dan has added citations for articles in books and in newspapers, covering this event and its aftermath, that span a period of 10 years. The campaign to change the law (The event did provoke a review of the regulations &mdash; see ) was but one of the things that ensued from the event.  The cited book discusses the controversy that the ensuing coverage of grief by two students sparked, for example.  Then there was the criticism of the BBC that was sparked.  This event is also singled out, as "the" M40 minibus crash, by this charity and by this government agency.  There are hundreds of fatal car crashes every day.  The way that we distinguish which ones should be included in Wikipedia with their own articles is whether they are the subjects of multiple non-trivial published works.  As per the citations provided by Pan Dan, this one is.  The PNC is satisfied.  Keep. Uncle G 19:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G. Drew30319 00:19, 29 December 2006 (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.