Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burlington derailment

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 keep. It might not necessarily be my own opinion, but the consensus is clearly to keep the article DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burlington derailment

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

News flash; train derails in Canada, three train workers killed. Wikipedia is WP:NOT#NEWS. Event is not notable or durable, and has vanished from the news. Speciate (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For now it's just news. EEng (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable enough. While derailments aren't particularly uncommon, this one resulted in loss of life and numerous injuries, which is much less common. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NOTNEWSPAPER doesn't apply and the GNG is easily met. The loss of human life makes it an event of lasting significance, thereby making it not "just news". Additionally, the story has stayed in the news for several weeks and has been used as an example when talking about potential policy changes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose you have sources for these claims? Did you know that 10 brakemen were killed every fucking day back in the 1880s? [1] Speciate (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, but its not the 1880s, and 10 brakemen are NOT killed every day today, so this is significant. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If kept the article must be renamed. 2012 VIA Rail Train 92 derailment might be one possible name, but "Burlington derailment" will make anybody with any knowledge of trains think it relates to the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, Burlington Northern, or Burlington Northern Santa Fe... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trains derail rather frequently, and deaths don't make it less of news or more of encyclopedic coverage. We need coverage from far more than a couple of weeks in order to demonstrate that this is an event worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia: inclusion in a book, major governmental publication, academic journal article, or sustained newspaper coverage over many months. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, we shouldn't have articles on any event until many months after it takes place, at minimum. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly renominate after some months if enduring notability is found not to have been established per User:Nyttend's comments above. This would be perfect for merger to a List of rail accidents in Canada if someone were minded to create such an article (see List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom for an example).--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pontificalibus. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 03:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above ~Sp K 03:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the same reasoning as Pontificalibus. Train derailments with loss of life are not all that common; maybe a handful in North America per year. When they happen, they generate a lot of news, lawsuits, and long term repercussions that resonate beyond the incident itself. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- while derailments are common, this one triggered a wider discussion. Prior to this derailment I thought they happened every fiveyears or so, given that this is my hazy idea of when the last one made the news. It is the wider discussion this derailment triggered that brought out that there are lots of derailments, but most at low speed, in the railyard, with limited injuries and damage. So this derailment is notable for that wider discussion it triggered.
To the contributor who asserted that their were 10 brakemen killed every day in 1880, well then, if there are sufficient WP:RS to back up that assertion, and establish the wiki-notability for one or more of those derailments, someone could start an article or articles about them. The existence of more common derailments in the past is irrelevant when considering the future of this article. Geo Swan (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.