Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Oban derailment

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 per consensus S.G.(GH) ping! 18:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Oban derailment

2010 Oban derailment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-fatal train derailment which currently fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). Purely news material, unless or until something else emerges, and in the field of rail incident investigations, that's not normally within 7 days. I'll withdraw if some spectacular cause is determined within 7 days, (e.g. a terrorist incident), but if this was a 'routine' derailment, albeit in a bit of an exciting position, I don't see how this article does not fall squarely into the 'wait and see' category of when to write an article. MickMacNee (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The line itself is signalled using a radio based signalling system, which is due to be replaced by a new european standard (ERTMS) system. This accident may have a bearing on the testing and acceptance (currently underway in Wales) of the proposed system by Network Rail. There are no track circuits or other methods of indicating the presence and location of a train on these systems. Added by Paul P 7 June 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.68.254 (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Falls of Cruachan railway station, West Highland Line or even Pass of Brander stone signals. Neither the ERTMS trial or lack of track circuits are relevant to the accident and neither confers notability on the accident. The line will be closed while the train is recovered and any track damage repaired, but this incident is not notable enough for a separate article. Any extended closure will be due to the remoteness of location rather than the seriousness of the incident. As far as I can tell from news reports, the only thing that seems to have burned is fuel, possibly from punctured tanks, and the fire either did not spread to the main body of the train, or was not sustained by the train (non flammable materials?). Photographs suggest that the train has not suffered significant fire damage, and there's no reports of burn injuries that I am presently aware of. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 10:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, if it were true that the apparent failure of the specific rock fall detectors was a cause of this accident, and the investigation did lead to changes in the safety systems, then it would per normal convention, become a notable accident in of itself. But this is a vague area as to how much change it needs to be, because there isn't a single rail accident report ever that does not make some reccomendations. However, as I said above, it is improper to write the article when there is simply no evidence that this is the case at all yet, and all we have at this time is an article about a non-fatal derailment caused by a landslide. MickMacNee (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is now evidence from the train driver confirming that the train hit boulders. But in any case, this is exactly what one would expect in this location. When I first saw the news item last night, simply saying "Glasgow-Oban train derailed", I immediately thought "Pass of Brander"... and it was. Incidentally, this is not a normal landslide (slippage of a bulk quantitiy of earth); the problem with this location is vast numbers of individual granite boulders scattered over the slopes of Ben Cruachan which rise up to 3000 feet above the line, which periodically roll down either individually or in small groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperman 42 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep as this accident involved quite a significant number of people and resources. Indeed, this continues. As far as I know, this will be quite a lengthy line closure and investigation, which will cause widespread disruption. I know some people doubt if "major incident" status means it's notable, and although of course it does not automatically mean that, remember that such incidents are quite rare in Scotland especially involving trains. The emergency services and the media don't react like this to a matter of insignificance. Macintosher (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as its actually a well-written article regardless of whether the accident is particularly notable in general. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a good article and this location is of historic importance as being the one in most danger in the whole of the British Isles from rockfalls - the line runs below the slopes of Ben Cruachan which is dotted with prehistoric granite boulders. Hence the unique warning wire screen which was installed soon after the line was opened in 1880. There have been previous derailments here for the same reason, and it is likely that this will not be the last. The latest incident is clearly relevant to the special safety measures, which already have a separate article as a unique feature of British railways. While a shorter article might have sufficed, now there is a good one in some detail, I see no reason to remove or shorten it. Hyperman 42 (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unique/Extraordinary != Notable. And much of what you've said here hasn't been covered by the soures about this accident anyway (I would like confirmation for example that "this location is of historic importance as being the one in most danger in the whole of the British Isles from rockfalls"). Now that we know from Network Rail that the unique Pass of Brander system was not designed to prevent this incident, which has otherwise been a minor derailment, then where is the claim of independent notability of this accident, over any other similar one? Unless or until there is proof this accident itself causes significant changes, then it fails WP:EVENT. If it is simply interesting in the whole field of rockfalls and British railways, it can be covered elsewhere quite adequately. MickMacNee (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say there are an awful lot of bad !votes going on here, on both sides. The heart of the question is not whether it is well written or not, or whether it has potential to become a GA or whatever, but whether it is
    talk) 23:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Incubate or userfy for now. At present it marginally fails
    WP:EVENT; however, the chance of this changing in the near future seems large enough to justify incubation or userfication pending the appearance of longer-term coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Mm, fair point. I'll be happy to change my vote to keep if more coverage emerges. Alzarian16 (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2010_Oban_derailment&oldid=1075693707"