Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 M6 motorway 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2008 M6 motorway crash

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Only covered by WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources with no WP:SIGCOV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and England. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, misleading nomination. There are four examples of SIGCOV already cited. There is also WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Garuda3 (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Independent [1] listed this as one of Traffic deaths: Britain's worst road crashes in 2011. On the same road 90 minutes earlier Dave Myers, a rugby league player died. Maybe the M6 accident pages need to be combined?Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see what you mean by "no WP:SIGCOV" because all four references are only about the crash. Furthermore, it doesn't fail WP:EVENTCRIT as the event was not routine, it was one of only three crashes in the country that decade which killed more than 5 people (see the link above from Davidstewartharvey). greyzxq ^talk 10:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread the pages that you've linked. The general notability guidelines require substantial coverage from secondary sources, not news coverage. The event criteria require a lasting effect of historical significance, not X number of deaths. Neither news coverage nor a death count contribute to notability in any way. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read what I've linked twice now, and still don't understand what you mean by "secondary sources" because news is a secondary source. If news coverage didn't contribute to notability in any way (as you said), there would be very few articles on events here because news coverage is the main source of information for most Wikipedia articles. greyzxq ^talk 20:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to WP:PRIMARYNEWS in the nomination statement. Some news articles can be secondary sources, but breaking news and reports on new developments are primary sources, and they do not contribute toward notability. That wouldn't really make sense, because then anything that's ever been reported in a newspaper could have its own article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an essay not a policy and AFD should always be judged against policy (A good example of this was the issue surrounding footballer and cricket stubs which did not meet GNG). The policy as per User:Greyzqy newspapers are secondary, as a police or highway report would be the primary source. However looking at this article and the M6 article, merging this article into the main one would seem to be the most logical step, as there is not any mention of accidents ir safety discussed on ghe M6 page.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covered by The Guardian, Daily Record (Scotland) and Express & Star - Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:14, 31 May 2023 (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.