Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copmanthorpe train accident

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. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copmanthorpe train accident

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

This article doesn't appear to be notable. In particular, it appears to be a straightforward train vs. car accident, with no lasting effects or reforms. In addition, editors three years ago seemed to agree that it should be deleted, but never submitted a request. Kage Acheron (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of those who didn't follow through with the request for deletion, so my apologies. I would just like to support deletion for the same arguments i gave on the article's talk page i.e."This article needs to be considered for deletion. It is already mentioned in summary on the Copmanthorpe page. I have failed to see a reply to the above and would be interested to know how this article could possibly fulfil the WP:Notability (events) criteria. This was a news item; it was covered nationally for a short period of time and then locally for an even shorter period; it has had no long lasting effect or had any historical significance. It could be argued it falls into the category of routine events, which would then fail this criteria for inclusion. Thoughts before i tag the article for deletion?" (this comment was from Rimmer1993 (talk · contribs) who left off signature)

Delete per nom - death was sad but no lasting impact or significant coverage —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can be adequately covered in relevant list articles. Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Eddie 17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no lasting impact. Mackensen (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The death is sad but at the end of the day we don't need articles on every small train v car crashes, Crashes happen everywhere but doesn't mean it needs an article. –Davey2010^Talk 14:46, 5 June 2015 (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.