Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Bullitt County Train 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 01:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Bullitt County Train Derailment[edit]

Fails WP:N and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: the claim (although unreferenced) "the largest in Kentucky's history" makes it notable. Generates ~13,000 google hits, i.e., was quite a buzz, and attracted federal government attention. Also, it is not exactly news: over a year now. `'Míkka>t 22:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hmmm. News item to me. The territory we're in is "What is news", "What is encyclopedic...". Where's the line? Is the worst train wreck in Kentucky history worthy of encyclopedia? Who knows... I'd say 'news item', per (my own) nom myself. --AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's something really substantial here. There are2200 derailments annually in the US alone. I'm not impressed that the EPA responded; that's their job. --Dhartung | Talk 00:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there appears to be significant coverage, like [1] and [2], both of which were written a year later. CitiCat^♫ 01:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was wrong about the Boeing 777 crash, but even the largest train derailment in the history of a particular state is not that noteworthy. Train cars sometimes get derailed, and sometimes homes are evacuated because of the contents of the trains. If this isn't already mentioned in the article about Bullitt County, Kentucky, a paragraph will suffice there. Mandsford (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These kinds of Articles are significant and take time to develop, and, as Notability is not fleeting, it should be allowed time to see how well it developes. 3 WikiProjects have been added to the Talkpage & +5Cats to the Article, now mabey the right people will find/work on it. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' From the 2nd source mentioned above "it was the third worst in North America. The response plan coordinated .... 49 agencies for a swift response." That's sufficient. DGG (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable; needs cleanup and sourcing. Everyking (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per CitiCat's sources: given the scale of the incident - "3rd worst in North America", I'd say this is highly notable. - Neparis (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Largest train wreck in a state (US states being the size of a country). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs expansion and attention. According to WHAS 11, it was the third-worst rail disaster for CSXT in North America. It also appears to be getting news coverage on its one-year anniversary (such as in WAVE 3's story). The current version of the article doesn't address that, but it should. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:32, 23 January 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.