Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audenshaw Junction rail 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 redirect‎ to Guide Bridge railway station. Viable ATD. However there is not a consensus to merge information thereto. Star Mississippi 02:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Audenshaw Junction rail accident

[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)

We don't report every fatal rail accident in WP. This one gets no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE nor seems to have any WP:EFFECT. Fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The effect was that signals people stopped hacking the track circuits to get around safety protections. "False-feeding was apparently common knowledge between signalmen in the 10 similar signal boxes in the area, and the frames were subsequently boxed in." (from the article.)

would need some reliable sources to confirm this. LibStar (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this shows a GNG pass how, exactly? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings:, was your comment directed at me or the keep voters? LibStar (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The keep vote, hence why it's at the same level of indentation as your comment. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Transportation, and England. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, evidently there is continued coverage given one source is from 1971 and the other from 2007. Garuda3 (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC source says "May 1970: Two people were killed and 13 were injured at Audenshaw Junction, Greater Manchester following a derailment." That's one sentence. That is not significant coverage by any definition. This vote fails to mention any policy and reads more like an opinion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need significant coverage from every source for there to be continued coverage. Garuda3 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable news event. Only WP:ROUTINE coverage, no WP:SIGCOV. Wikipedia is not a directory of every time someone died in public. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Disappointing that no WP:ATD was identified. This could be merged into Guide Bridge railway station instead of deleted. Garuda3 (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen A cyclist was hit by a rail vehicle recently, I suppose in the same area, that's all the hits I get when looking for this term. Oaktree b (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to merging info into the station article as explained above. Oaktree b (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is a bit of an embarrassment. The accident may well be a significant event in the history of rail accidents and signalling safety, but I'm really struggling to find any secondary source. There's no question that the RAIB reports, while totally reliable, are totally primary. I would very much like to keep the article for its historical and transport interest, but it's completely contrary to Wikipedia's policies on notability to do so. We therefore either need a change to how we handle notability of rail accidents, analogous to NPROF, a get-out clause that an accident is notable if, for example, it caused fatalities, changes in safety rules, etc. (and I think the non-rail-obsessed Wikipedia community is unlikely to swallow that one), or someone needs to find some sourcing. In any case, I think it would be a very good idea to sort out, generally, what we consider notable. I attempted to discuss this at Talk:List_of_rail_accidents_in_the_United_Kingdom#Inclusion_of_minor_mishaps_of_no_consequence_and_no_secondary_sourcing but failed rather. Is it worth another discussion? Elemimele (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia guidelines are just that - guidelines. If you feel keeping this article makes Wikipedia better, vote keep and explain why. Garuda3 (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: RAIB reports are not primary sources. The RAIB is totally independent of Network Rail, or any train operating company. Mjroots (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is true - as far as it goes - but I'm not sure the official accident reports can be used for notability purposes anyway. They are independent (by necessity) of the companies and individuals, but they're involved, at least in the sense that they investigate and write reports on every incident on the British Railways (including, iirc, near misses). So I'm not sure that we can say that an official report was made of the incident and therefore it is notable. That's a bit like saying a person's death is notable because there was a post mortem and coroner's investigation.

(To be clearer, I'm not saying that's the position you are making, just that one which may be inferred from your reply..) JMWt (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JMWt put it better than me. They may be independent of the rail company that actually created the accident, but they are part of the UK rail system in that they are the official body that investigates rail accidents. And yes, since they are obligated to investigate everything, the fact they investigated doesn't mean the accident is unusual or notable. I would be dubious about relying on an HSE investigation as the only source for an industrial accident, and I feel the same about the rail investigations (though of course their purpose is to improve safety rather than instigate legal action, which perhaps makes them more independent than for example, a police report into a crime). Bottom line: a genuinely notable accident will have a lot more coverage than just the RAIB report. Elemimele (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)

Delete - sad as it sounds, a small number of deaths in an accident on the British railways was not a rare event for more than a hundred years. For me a mention on List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom is as much as it, and hundreds of other accidents like it, are going to get. Incidentally, I think this is one of the rare occasions where a list of that type - without bluelinks in the majority of cases - is important to retain. JMWt (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going off-topic, I really worry about the concept of that list being full of red-links. It mustn't become an indiscriminate heap of minor buffer-bumps, or a complete duplicate of the accident archive[1] so we have to have some sort of inclusion criteria and overall strategy. The presence of secondary sourcing is pretty much key to what Wikipedia uses. If we don't rely on that, what are we going to rely on? We can't do it on the basis of a few guys here thought it was sort of interesting. Elemimele (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to answer that. I was looking at List of railway accidents and incidents in India and was reflecting to myself that the majority of listings on the British list probably wouldn't meet the criteria of inclusion if they'd happened in India. JMWt (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2023 (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.