Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Crozet, Virginia, train crash

2018 Crozet, Virginia, train crash

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. Train-truck accidents are very common in the United States. The only reason this specific incident got so much coverage is because there happened to be some politicians on the train. Cutlass ^Ciera 21:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NOTNEWS, WP:SENSATIONAL, LASTING Agree with nom. This is a WP:ROUTINE event that received coverage in some news media outlets because some politicians were involved. Coverage was short lived after the accident, and this event had no significant impact. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one is pretty well written and sourced. Regardless of the Not news and other linked reminders ... Category:Railway accidents and incidents in the United States by state or territory is evidence that these disaster articles are an accepted part of Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This did have lasting coverage, including coverage that actually occurred over a year after the event - which is already currently in the article - and as such the two arguments for deletion don't apply. SportingFlyer T·C 01:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While notability is not inherited, it can be conferred, and the fact this was a special chartered train - not there happened to be some politicans on [it] - means this was notable, and received coverage accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "special train" isn't grounds for being notable. If one of the Cass Shays hit a car and someone died there wouldn't be nearly this much coverage. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may be a common occurrence, but this particular incident was well documented, both by the NTSB and the media. There are numerous public domain images of the incident, and it is covered with extensive detail in both the court and NTSB records. Also it is notable that a heritage train set was involved in the incident, and it was not a regularly scheduled passenger train. Cocoaguy (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being "well documented" doesn't mean it's notable. A bunch of routine coverage of a type of accident that is extremely common and run of the mill just because American news media is known for being keen to report on things that will get eyes, while not necessarily very notable. Basically every accident involving a train and truck is investigated by either the NTSB or the local police. Being a "heritage train" is also not grounds to being notable. Reading and Northern 425 hit a car and there isn't an article on that minor incident. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per prev noms. Article name does have grammar error in it and if kept should be moved to 2018 Crozet, Virginia train crash without the the second comma after Virginia. - :Epluribusunumyall (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Epluribusunumyall: The second comma is correct - see MOS:GEOCOMMA. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535 I get what MOS:GEOCOMMA is trying to relay, but my reading of it is more in regards to sentences within an article and not the title of an article. For a title it doesn't really make grammatical sense - in my opinion - to have the second comma create a parenthetical of just "train crash," as it leaves context lacking from the rest of the title sentence. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to NOTNEWS, "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Yes, this event has been shown to be verifiable by this discussion, and nothing more. Verifiable does not equal suitability for inclusion.

In fact, the sections entitled "Crash" and "Investigation and criminal charges" are packed with banal and detailed information just like news reporting. This shows that there is nothing derived from the sources that shows a notable impact. It is as if Wikipedia had a news reporter on the scene.

At the same time, Wikipedia has adopted a summary style for its articles, and this is not that. NOTNEWS specifically says "...most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style." And notice, news style is specifically linked to this notability criteria and so correlates with this portion of the ISNOT policy page. So, this demonstrates a contradiction with the notability criteria related to this topic and discussion.

Also, LASTING is not satisfied here. There are two news articles about the inebriated truck driver about a year after the crash. This does not fit the criteria for LASTING. To be LASTING per the notability criteria "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation". No such effects have been described in relation to this accident.

Additionally, LASTING says, " Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable." Sorry, but two articles on an inebriated truck driver a year later, does not appear to demonstrate that this crash has resulted in "a permanent effect of historical significance." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree - WP:LASTING is usually interpreted as having an impact longer than just the news cycle of the event, which is clearly the case here. I've never actually seen the text from WP:LASTING quoted, and it's also not exclusionary. The Crash and Investigation and criminal charges sections you malign are also exactly the type of sections train crash articles have. This really isn't a difficult keep. SportingFlyer T·C 17:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement is fine - it is just your personal opinion and doesn't speak for fulfilling notability criteria. And having an "impact longer than a news cycle" is not at all what LASTING says, or indicates or or implies. And that view is not the consensus view. The consensus view is the the wording of LASTING. However, anyone is welcome to open a Wikipedia wide RFC to change it to the preferred version that is being presented.

Also, two trivial news articles on an inebriated truck driver does not show any kind of impact that resulted in a lasting effect. The essence of LASTING is there has to be sourced notable impact(s). How is the story of the inebriated truck driver, the lasting impact from the previous year's collision between a train and a truck? Where's the course of history that was changed? Where is the legislation that was enacted? And so on?

So, in other words the course of history that was significantly altered was a drunk truck driver (who was not charged with anything). That does not make sense at all. It's as if we are being told that one plus one equals thirty-five. Also, comparing this article with other articles doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria — no matter what sections of other articles say. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]