Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barendrecht train accident

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barendrecht train accident

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

4.5 years later, I don't see how this meets WP:EVENT. Does not appear to have persistent coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article can be expanded and improved by translation of material in the corresponding nl-wiki article. Needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Lack of persistent coverage is probably because info hasn't been incorporated into the article rather than not existing. Presumably the Onderzoeksraad Voor Veiligheid have released a report by now. As I said, needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @LibStar: - you did read the big notice at WP:AFD before you nominated this article for deletion, didn't you? It clearly states the articles in need of improvement are not candidates for deletion. Your claim of failing WP:PERSISTENCE is hereby challenged. Two minutes searching of t'internet reveals that not only were two freight trains involved, but so was a passenger train!. Suggest you now withdraw this nomination. Mjroots (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - article requiring improvement was not my claim for deletion. Having a passenger train involved does not automatically add to notability. And demanding someone to withdraw a nomination doesn't work. Regards. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your reason for nominating the article was that there was a lack of persistent coverage. Both myself and Oakshade have shown that such coverage exists, even if not present in the article. I did not demand that you withdraw the nomination, I merely suggested that you do so. You are quite free to let the debate run its natural course but you appear to be in the minority here. Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is notable and there is a report available now. The length of the article is not, by itself, a reason to delete it. CRwikiCA talk 22:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The fact that the three sources are all in Dutch, and that it's a stub with few references, does not disqualify it from being notable. Epicgenius (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't addressed how this article meets WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any train collision that causes several injuries or deaths and results in significant media coverage is considered to meet WP:N(E). There's at least five references in the Dutch article. Epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't report every fatality and crash in Wikipedia, it needs to meet WP:EVENT and have WP:PERSISTENT coverage. The Dutch article has 5 sources all from September 2009, this does not show WP:PERSISTENT is met. LibStar (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent coverage is not needed per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, your WP:PERSISTENT does not exist as you claim, it merely links to archived Village Pump discussion pages. The accident does meet the event notability guidelines and also is covered in English language sources, e.g. in The Telegraph. For all these reason I remain with my Keep statement. CRwikiCA talk 17:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I meant WP:PERSISTENCE. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Besides easily passing WP:GNG, even if if the WP:PERSISTENCE concept were an actual rule (it's not), two years later in 2011, the legacy of this crash was the primary example of what needs to be done to improve Dutch railways safety. [1] --Oakshade (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no WP:BEFORE in this AfD nomination. In particular, I see no mention of the article on the Dutch Wikipedia in the AfD nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

when I nominated this article, the Dutch article had 5 sources all from 2009. LibStar (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Dutch Wikipedia article has sources that pass WP:GNG, and also leads to [2] , which shows that the topic attracted sufficient attention that new details were reported a year later. As Oakshade has reported, there is a 2011 report of the Safety Board available. Some of the analysis here is that the train was going one kph slower than a level that the existing automatic train controls were set to detect, and relates the technical issues of this aging safety system to a broader European standard. Unscintillating (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2014 (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.