Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spa Road Junction rail 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. While there are slightly more editors advocating Keep than Delete, those favoring Delete are insistent that this is a minor accident and GNG has not been met. Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Spa Road Junction rail crash

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

article is about a very minor accident, and supported by a minimalist selection of primary sources. I would have used PROD but my experience is that anything railway-related is always controversial, so I'm bringing it here instead. I'm quite certain that local news articles could be found (every rail mishap generates something in local newspapers), but I'm not sure there's any merit in having lengthy articles on minor mishaps, derived entirely from the accident report. Elemimele (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation,  and England.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm quite certain that local news articles could be found suggests you did not carry out a WP:BEFORE search. Garuda3 (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Valid complaint! In explanation, I had a look, but found only WP-mirrors and accident reports. My comment about local news articles was based on the idea that rail accidents always generate a bit of news coverage the day after, so the fact I didn't find anything with an amateurish Google search doesn't mean that someone with good newspaper search skills won't turn something up. Nevertheless, the accident probably still isn't notable; it didn't kill anyone, it didn't lead to any major changes in rail safety and technology, it didn't have any repercussions beyond, in the short term, a lot of very angry commuters (which is very non-notable on the UK rail network). I found this article while looking through List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom. The accident list article is more than a basic list; it's not just a list of accidents with articles, it's a list of accidents that meet criteria defined in the list and on the talk-page. It struck me that Spa Road didn't meet the criteria for the list. I had a look at the article and felt it read like someone's personal investigation rather than a WP article. Things leap out like the deduction of the driver's culpability based on the Drivers' Rule Book; we should report what newspapers say; we can report what the accident investigators say; but we can't start reading the rules and drawing our own deductions. Elemimele (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support; almost entirely unsourced, no indication of what makes it notable in its own right.
 * Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Just a routine railroad accident with no fatalities. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom as it makes more sense for this to be listed in a list if its minor accident with little notability other wise the article should be kept NotOrrio (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm quite worried about a redirect as the list itself does have some threshold: it's not a list of all UK rail accidents (we're not a database), it's a list of notable accidents. "Notable" in the list's context is being interpreted more broadly than it would for an article, so the list isn't merely a navigation aid to articles (as a true Wikipedia list often is). I think it's reasonable to have accidents in the list that don't merit a full article, but this one, I think, probably fails to meet the criteria even of the list (although it's currently in it). Elemimele (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article has issues. I've looked on the BBC News website and at The Times and not found anything. However, needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Although not as many trains were involved, a comparison to the 2018 Lewisham train strandings can be made at least in part. User:NotOrrio's suggestion is reasonable, but any outcome to this AfD should be without prejudice to recreation, subject to that recreation demonstrating GNG is met (V x RS, without OR). Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - not very exciting in itself but one of a series of accidents that led to the conclusion that AWS was not doing its job and TPWS was needed until something better could be devised. I've found some newspaper mentions that I'll add. One specifically mentions the rollout of TPWS under the heading "This could have avoided smash". --Cavrdg (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment. "One of a series of accidents" indicates to me it isn't notable on its own. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - article has been improved since nomination, and GNG appears to be met. Mjroots (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - sufficient references for the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep New sources added show WP:GNG has been met. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * How has GNG been met? I see routine coverage, nothing more. No changes in policy, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2023 (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.