Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrison train 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 keep. WP:SNOW applies. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Garrison train crash[edit]

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

It's a single event with no notable effect. More importantly though, the exact same level of detail already exists at [[1]] Yaksar (let's chat) 05:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Times called it "one of the most remarkable accidents in the history of railroads" and 19 people were killed. The article can be expanded, and the fact that it is mentioned in a list is no reason to delete this article and its reference. Cullen328 (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not, but the fact that all that seems to be said about it is basically in the list (or should be, it's entry at the list is quite short) is a different story.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a few references that I believe establish notability. If the sabotage hypothesis every gained more popularity I imagine other news source would exist too, but their archives may not be online. Ravendrop 07:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to references in good sources (NY times) and the substantial nature of the crash Pi (Talk to me! ) 09:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well-referenced, establishing this as a major event at the time. A train crash with 19 fatalities in 1897 is just as notable as the same crash in 2011, and we have reliable sources as well.Avram (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being well referenced doesn't override WP:EVENT. WP:EFFECT applies here. I don't see enduring notability. 19 people being killed doesn't guarantee notability. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notable, albeit in a local way, but that doesn't stop it from being notable. It's verifiable. The article is decent quality. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this article has been preserved at Train Spotting World in case of deletion on Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well sourced. It might be a bit local ... but still no need for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once notable, always notable, and I think this would be notable regardless of time or place. Like Avram, I would judge it by the same standards that we would apply to a 2007 rail accident that killed 19 people. And I sincerely believe that both Yaksar and Libstar feel that this would be barred as simply WP:NOTNEWS, even if it had happened in 2007 rather than 1897. However, I think that major transportation disasters qualify as WP:EVENT by being identified in almanacs and other reference books long after they have happened. That the same level of detail is on List of rail accidents (pre-1950) doesn't affect my conclusion-- indeed, I think it simply shows up the fact that Wikipedia is top heavy on the "this just in" stuff and remarkably light on history, where everything that happened in 2010 gets its own article, and 135 years worth of events gets dumped into a "pre-1950" page. That's going to happen in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with a demographic where most of the contributors were still children back in 1999. Mandsford 17:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Mandsford said it much better than I could have done. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes the GNG by a comfortable margin. bobrayner (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Contrary to the assessment of the nominee, this article has far more detail on the accident than the brief mention on the list. The only real issue with this article is that it's about a local crash. ----DanTD (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, beyond the obvious GNG compliance, the number of track walkers be immediately increased is a clear indication that this accident did have an WP:EFFECT on general railroad policy and guideline at that time. --Pgallert (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2011 (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.