Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borung Highway collision

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. I will post the content on the Borung Highway article talk page for any possible merge. Tan ǀ 39 01:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borung Highway collision

Newsworthy, yes. Encyclopedically notable, doesn't appear so. It was PRODded/dePRODed approximately a year ago with the note, "deprod; this article is well-written and sourced, nominate it for AfD as I'm sure it is a controversial deletion" so here we are. It made the news when it happened with the usual post-accident promises of fixing the intersection, etc. but no evidence it had any lasting impact on laws. Sole claim to notability "This was the state of Victoria's worst road accident, in terms of casualties, in over a decade, resulting in all seven people in both vehicles being killed. After the collision, one vehicle caught fire and burned." seems weak. So lets get it out of the way, there was news coverage and its referenced --- I don't think that establishes notability. Thoughts? TravellingCari 01:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —TravellingCari 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —TravellingCari 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not news. RayAYang (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I can't really add to what TravellingCari's said, except that I agree. If a delete consensus is eastablished for this one, I'll nominate Gerogery level crossing accident as well. Reyk _YO! 01:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The accident is tragic, but Wikipedia is not a news agency. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The most serious accident in Victoria for a decade is a crying shame, as are all accidents, but otherwise no major consequences forseen. delete lest we become a catalog of road accidents. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Borung Highway since it points out a problem with the arrangement there. Though there were 7 people killed, it's because there were five in one of the two cars involved. Sadly, fatal collisions between two vehicles happen every day, all around the clock. Mandsford (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mandsford - there is some notable information here, and the worst accident in Victoria in a decade is pretty bad, but it just doesn't merit an article to itself. Instead, it should go to the highway's article where it is relevent; after all, the main notability is the implications for the road itself. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, great info, probably doesn't need its own article though. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. If someone can find a government document in which this collision is referred to as "the Borung Highway collision" or similar, that may establish notability. Otherwise, I think this is just another bad traffic accident. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There don't appear to be any such documents because it really was a run of the mill traffic accident. It gets the flurry of quick news but has no long term notability. Would have been different if this accident had been cited as a reason to fix the area, but there's no evidence it has. TravellingCari 15:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for fuck's sake nothings wrong with it! I say leave the article and don't delete it. Benshi

I have visited Benshi's User talk page and left a message asking him to refrain from using language that may offend some people. I have alerted him to the WP policy of WP:Civility Dolphin51 (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, if you think that swearing is against civility, you're kidding yourself. And I don't swear for the lulz, btw. Benshi —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some of the content. This is extremely overdone for a car accident! I can name several equally-bad car accidents just in my own home town. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2008 (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.