Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Glasgow bin lorry 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 snow keep. Everybody who has commented, excluding the nominator, has recommended this be kept so there is no chance that this will have any other outcome if this discussion is left open. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Glasgow bin lorry crash[edit]

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

This is non-notable event, and fails all of the WP:EVENT criteria. It has no WP:LASTING impact, no WP:DIVERSE coverage, no relevance outside a small WP:GEOSCOPE, and no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Overall, a minor incident with sensationalist shock, but no encyclopaedic significance. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, after all. RGloucester — ☎ 01:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Incident which has hit the headlines, with e.g. flags flying at half mast across Scotland. It does pass WP:DIVERSE as several sources have treated it as a major news item. PatGallacher (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "major news item" does not indicate notability. We are not a newspaper. We are an encylopaedia. Flags flying "half mast" has nothing to do with whether this article meets WP:EVENT. A bunch of sources repeating the same news item does not pass WP:DIVERSE. There is no WP:DEPTH of coverage either, and certainly no WP:LASTING impact. RGloucester — ☎ 02:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Might not be news for ITN. But definitely something that should be covered by Wikipedia. NOTNEWS is in my opinion one of the weirdest guidelines on Wikipedia, as it is built on news and new sources for most parts. What do we know about LASTING, absolutely nothing as it has only been a few days and the media conitnues to cover this story so pure speculation about the lasting of this. This meets WP:EVENT and it has great sourcing as well. --BabbaQ (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. There is no "great sourcing". Was this on the front page of The New York Times or even the non-Scotland version of BBC? No. We know about WP:LASTING, because a few days after there is no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in WP:DIVERSE sources. RGloucester — ☎ 02:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whilte I tend to agree with your rationale, this is overstating: it still is on the non-Scottish version of the BBC news site and was the 3rd headline item on the Radio Four news just 3 minutes ago. AllyD (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of sources, Plenty of coverage, I'll admit the article needs improving but I see no reason to delete, Also personally I think stating it as a "minor incident" is complete rubbish (6 fatalities involving in essence a run-away bin lorry is in my eyes a major incident). –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 03:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Plenty of coverage" does not mean the article passes WP:EVENTCRIT, or that it is notable. Can you please actually read the criteria, rather than saying "no reason to delete"? RGloucester — ☎ 03:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Of course it was covered worldwide and has lasting effect. It was reported in Austalia, New Zealand, India etc. The Daily Record described Scotland in mourning from the crash so a whole nation is involved. Nicola Sturgeon said of it "this city will pull together to support those who have been affected, not just in the days ahead but in the weeks and months to come." That seems lasting enough for me.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:13, 25 December 2 014 (UTC)

Keep per all the above. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It had sustained national news coverage several orders of magnitude more than a typical road accident event, which immediately makes it notable in my view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Christmassy Snowball keep --20:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep National news coverage and significant sources. Events such as the London helicopter crash provides precedent too doktorb _words^deeds 21:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources clearly indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are plenty of sources and it was something commented on by major politicians and public figures across the UK. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 00:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has had massive coverage across the world. Was on the front page of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and News Limited, two largest news outlets in Australia. Covered by everyone from Daily Mail, Times to India to the New York Times and coverage is on going. JT_dale^Talk~ 03:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above.Clubjustin4 (talk) 05:35, 26 December 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.