Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Saltsjöbanan train crash

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 for now. Analysing the arguments for both keeping and deletion, there are valid NOTNEWS arguments in favour of deletion, while the arguments for keeping are largely based on wide coverage and anticipated longer term significance. While wide coverage doesn't seem a convincing counter to NOTNEWS, there is a majority in favour of keeping based on perceived significance of this incident. Whether or not this crash will have any longer term significance will have to be judged at a later date, and if this doesn't materialize it can be discussed again at AfD. Michig (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Saltsjöbanan train crash

[edit]
2013 Saltsjöbanan train crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Don't say stolen trains have never happened before, a search of google news archive will say otherwise. This is a case of WP:Recentism

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ...William 00:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 00:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC) ...William 00:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BBC runs many stories from Europe. that in itself does not add to notability or override WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT#NEWS. WP:Recentism. This incident is not important enough to have its own article. Not a single person was even killed. It could merit a one-line mention in the article about the train company or the line. The reason for the initial media coverage was the original suggestion that the cleaner stole the train, making this a good "novelty story" for the press. That has now turned out not to be the case, so extensive media coverage cannot be put forward as a reason for keeping this article. -- Alarics (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I believe the nominator should read WP:RAPID, while the article-creator needs the read WP:PERSISTENCE, as you were both a little trigger-happy. In an AfD, two weeks from now, we could have decided if this event passes WP:PERSISTENCE, while on the other hand; article should 't be created before they pass notability-guidelines, in this case WP:PERSISTENCE. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - at least for now. Covered in The Local (Swedish), BBC (British), Time.com's newsfeed[3], Herald Sun (Australia)[4], Gizmodo (Australia)[5], NTN World News[6], and the Malaysian Digest[7]. Global news coverage means that, for now at least, it passes WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - WP:RAPID, mentioned all over the world. not mamny news from this region of the worlds get that.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Apart from the great offence I take at Alarics's suggestion that an event is not important unless someone gets killed, there are several important points. These relate to, of course, transport safety in Sweden, and as I see it, ethics in journalism (if there are any). The world press called this woman a thief, but once the facts were learnt, it turns out the whole incident was an accident. No, this incident is worthy of an article not least of all for the reaction that it drew from the press (and I smell a few lawsuits coming from her). Kelisi (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - You should not take offence, still less "great offence". See the notability criteria for rail accidents at WP:TWP/MOS: "Accidents where a significant number of casualties or a significant amount of property damage occur ... Accidents that form the basis for rail transport legislation". -- Alarics (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment "Accidents where a significant number of casualties or a significant amount of property damage occur" How much houses needs to be destroyed before it meets "significant amount"? Bobjork (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 37.52.0.172 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wish we would rely slightly less on what's reported in the news as our basis for what to cover and what not. As has been pointed out, most of the reason papers wrote about it was the novelty angle: people like to read about a train crashing into a house because, hey, that's weird. For example, some years ago we had a story making the rounds in the newspapers around the world about an involuntary childless Bavarian couple who, after years of trying still couldn't get children asked their priest and had to be taught that children come from having sex, not from praying. I'd consider this to be on pretty much the same level. /Julle (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I agree and that is why my vote is still to delete this article. The paragraph that has already been added to Saltsjöbanan is quite sufficient. The world media made far more of it than the incident justifies, because it was said at first, wrongly it now transpires, that the cleaner stole the train, bringing it into the category of "weird news". It now turns out that it was just a minor runaway incident, of which there have been hundreds in the world over the years, and we do not have a separate article for each one. -- Alarics (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except, it's not a "minor runaway incident", because it has quite possibly exposed major flaws in the way the locomotives are looked after and stored by that railway, and an investigation is underway. Not to mention the lack of ethics in journalism (again). Just because something's novel, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article. This article passes GNG and, at least temporarily, PERSISTANCE (papers have reported both the initial theft claim, and then the fact it wasn't stolen.) As pointed out before, there is no reason to rush to delete an article this early - if nothing more happens after a few weeks, THEN it might be a valid candidate for deletion (see WP:RAPID, as pointed out several times). Even much more disastrous events tend to be targeted by trigger-happy people - the Sandy Hook shooting was nominated twice, for example, despite that being a clear violation of rules (it appeared on the front page). Lukeno94 (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the discussion and criticism following the accident indeed have any effect on newspaper ethics and/or train security in Sweden, then that's a good argument to keep the article. WP:RAPID is indeed relevant here. My beef is with the, often mentioned, argument that since this was in the news, there should be an article about the accident. The fact that something was reported in newspapers could be a sign that it's relevant, but shouldn't be the sole reason to write an article, just like the lack of journalistic interest shouldn't automatically mean that something ought to be deleted. /Julle (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 109.80.120.253 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep, this is going to have long-term consequences for the railway regardless of how the train ended up in the house. If it was stolen then security will need to be addressed, if it wasn't then safety systems and procedures will be in the spotlight. In either scenario there will be questions that need answering about how a derailment could result in a train hitting a house and what measures will be needed to prevent a recurrence. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete a train crash of one death is not Wikipedia reports. WP:NOTNEWS. coverage in BBC does not advance notability, given that it covers these one day things as part of its European coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - You ignore the inevitable consequences of the story, LibStar. There will inevitably be a shakeup, rolling heads, new procedures, new enforcement measures and the whole bit as a result of what happened at Saltsjöbaden, whether anyone was killed or not (no-one was, by the way; it was 0 deaths, not 1 death, and anyway, somebody damn well could have been killed). Furthermore, the world media wrongly called the woman involved a thief, and I feel certain that that will have its legal consequences, with the attendant consequences for the blockheads who let loose their "theory" when they should have been very careful what they told the media. Kelisi (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There will inevitably be a shakeup, rolling heads, new procedures, new enforcement measures and the whole bit as a result of what happened at Saltsjöbaden . that's all WP:CRYSTAL . when there is actual coverage of this I'll support the article, but as it stands it fails as per WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong! You'd have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to see that. Trains don't just crash into buildings without consequences. Had I mentioned specific details just above, you could have levelled the crystal ball charge at me, but to say that nothing will happen is fatuous. Of course there will be important changes. Do you realize what an embarrassment this already is for the railway? And then they had to go and compound the embarrassment by voicing their "theft" theory, which will also have its consequences, which is plainly obvious to all who are not blind, deaf and dumb. Kelisi (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

do you know about predicting future notability of a recent incident? being an embarrassment is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what they will obviously have to do about it is the point, not the embarrassment itself. I think you're using a very shallow analysis of the situation. Kelisi (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel the need to point out that although they have debated the relevance of the BBC's article, they've completely missed the fact I and others have presented several other reliable sources. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2013_Saltsjöbanan_train_crash&oldid=1137518435"