Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001 Sussex bus 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2001 Sussex bus crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. we don't report every fatal crash in Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom, also WP:1EVENT. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The subject of the article has no lasting notability and Wikipedia is not a news service. Hut 8.5 12:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This event is not notable enough for it's own article and it doesn't comply with Wikipedia is not a news service. Aaaccc (talk), 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:NOTNEWS states that "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." A bus crash that killed several people is by no means routine, so this should not be judged under that policy. The relevant guideline is WP:EVENT, which requires an event to have long-term coverage and lasting impact. At first glass this appears to fail massively... but this suggests otherwise. Regional coverage from seven years later which mentions the creation of a charity as a direct result of the crash is certainly better from a notability point of view than what's there at present. Not enough by itself, but this would appear to be less clear cut than the four above !votes suggest. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:44, 19 March 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.