Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WLS-TV minivan crash incident


 * 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 Delete. Chetblong T C 03:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WLS-TV minivan crash incident

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was previously deleted as Articles for deletion/Gerald Richardson., mainly due to  It was later merged to WLS-TV as a section, which has (again) been deleted. It has now been recreated as this article, which was originally a redirect.

Let me summarize some of the arguments related to the event in question.
 * A mentally ill man drives his car into a TV studio, that's the whole story
 * This event is unlikely to have any lasting effect on anyone except the subject, his family, and perhaps the newscasters involved. It's a textbook case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS.
 * This is a property crime that got undue attention because it involved a tv station that captured the noise, live on air. You Tube fodder, for maybe a few days, but not WP
 * Fails WP:N and WP:BLP, no lasting notability Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

The clear consensus from the last AfD was, not only is this a BLP violation as an article about the subject, but it's not a notable event. Wikipedia is not news and this event has no lasting notability &mdash; it got some minor coverage because of the circumstances, and the drifted into obscurity. It's probably no more, or less, notable than any one of the innumerable car crashes which makes it into the back pages of the New York Times. Indeed, the only claim to any lasting fame is that it became an internet meme &mdash; but, naturally, this claim is unsourced.

Did this happen? Yes. Was it reported on? Yes. Does that make it notable? Not in the slightest. Haemo (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the nominator says it all. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nomination. --Mhking (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Notable...when the crash happened on December 23rd. Two months later? Not so much.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per BLP1E and comprehensive nom Travellingcari (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - lasting notability is not established, and more likely, does not exist.  Jd 027  chat 00:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It probably won't make any difference, but I think that this article should indeed be kept. For one thing, WP:BIO1E does not apply since this isn't a biography. I agree that the original Gerald Richardson article should have been deleted as an inappropriate, one-event biography, but this article (which I wrote independently of the deleted material) is primarily a description of the event, not the person. Also, notability is not a policy; it is a guideline, and one that is often questioned and contested. It's not a violation of WP:BLP because all claims are attributed to reliable sources as required by Wikipedia policy. The article meets the three core content policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR) and should therefore be kept. *** Crotalus *** 00:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is this particular article special, so that we should set aside notability guidelines for it? --Haemo (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that this article is special. I'm arguing that any article that meets core content policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and, if applicable, WP:BLP) should be kept, and that WP:N is an unneeded addition to these basic requirements. Several attempts have been made to elevate notability to policy level, and they have failed because many users consider the concept misguided. I would also point out that, even if you accept WP:N, interpretations of the policy differ. Some people think that notability, once attained, can't be lost later on; so if the crash was notable in late December 2007, it is automatically notable now. But my argument does not depend on that. *** Crotalus *** 02:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, you fundamentally disagree with notability as a guideline. Fair enough, but I don't think this is the correct place to make that argument.  --Haemo (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, this would have been a 100% local news story if it hadn't resulted in some compelling video of the anchor reacting as the vehicle crashed into the studio. --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep. I'd not object to a merge to WLS-TV provided that this stays there (it certainly is one of the most interesting things to ever happent to WLS). However, this article can manage to be kept on its own given how widespread and continuing the coverage was over a long period of time (making it not a NOTNEWS situation). Dhartung's comment above "this would have been a 100% local news story if it hadn't resulted in some compelling video of the anchor reacting" misses how Wikipedia inclusion policies function. We don't say "well, if not for this tiny thing it wouldn't have generated many reliable sources so we don't treat it that way". If we did, nothing would be notable. And to be clear since this article does not focus on the person there is no BLP1E issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How was the coverage "widespread and continuing"? The crash happened two months ago &mdash; in the last month, there has been no news stories on it.  It's a blip &mdash; it didn't even pass the "1 month" test for enduring notability. Dhartung's comment is not "this wouldn't be notable if..." it's a comment that the only reason it even attracted attention to begin with was because of the fact it was on air; as I said, it's no more or less notable than any car crash that makes it into the New York Times.  It has no lasting impact on anyone, possibly beyond the driver &mdash; it's quite simply news, and that's it.  --Haemo (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's a good point. I need to think about this more. It may make more sense to simply merge the content (regardless I see no reason for not having a mention at the main WLS-TV article). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Newspedia: Just Say No. Wikinews is just down the hall and they don't take GFDL material. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:32, 21 February 2008 (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.