Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Birmingham road collision

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. NOTNEWS carries the day here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Birmingham road collision

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

Doesn't meet WP:NEVENT - appears to be routine road collision with nothing special or indication for WP:LASTING for notability. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly one of the reasons WP:NOTNEWS was organized. Road collisions, even with fatalities, are a routine occurrence. What matters is historical significance and pertinence, all of which are explained further in the notability criteria for events.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst it seems inevitable that this will be deleted under NOTNEWS, I'm unimpressed by AfDing any article just an hour after creation. If it isn't CSDable, there's no timescale that requires invoking the effort of an AfD that quickly. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, notability can't be fixed so I don't see a reason to wait around...the only reason not to would be WP:RAPID. In this case I reckon if it ever has a chance of becoming notable, it'd take months to determine as that's how long significant things - like regulatory changes etc take to happen. Perhaps I should've waited a few days though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Or the editor who created the article could have waited. WP:RAPID works both ways.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am tempted to cite RAPID for inclusion. It might be notable and lasting, we do not know yet all of the circumstances. But I will WAIT a week.Icewhiz (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted above, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and this is clearly WP:ROUTINE. If there's anything that emerges in the future that makes this not routine, recreating this page would be easy. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. In the unlikely event this routine event becomes something that meets notability criteria, the (two-sentence) article can always be brought back. With routine events, the order is supposed to be wait to see if the event is notable, then create the article. Not the other way around. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia should be a website people can rely on, the ocasional stub (see WP:STUB) is fine, but having a two sentence "article" or any other "article" of this length will reflect poorly on Wikipedia and doesn't even have a reason to be on the cite. this article in particular is not meeting WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, and the fact that it's two sentences to me is enough reason to delete it. Grapefruit17 (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very one off event and non notable. I think there's speedy tag for this kindof news piece or there should be one. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Routine coverage of unorganised events – for example, shooting incidents – may not necessarily qualify on A7; deletion discussions should be preferred in such cases. is a note on A7. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This crash is still being covered in the last 24 hrs, e.g. - Shocking video shows supercars racing up to 145mph near site of Birmingham taxi crash, Sun, Birmingham crash victim Kasar Jehangir jailed over police chase, BBC, Final two victims of 'harrowing' multi-vehicle car crash in Birmingham named, Sky News, Birmingham crash: Man killed in smash that left six dead was drug dealer jailed over 120mph police chase, Telegraph. Seems some involved had a questionable background and that the site of the crash is used as an informal racing track.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, a lot of events get some coverage for a few days to a week, as various news comes out. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hence WP:RAPID. I looking at this earlier in order to see if I should case a delete !vote (it is a crash after all) - but it seem that the coverage still has legs - and if indeed this was a case of use of the road for illegal racing (e.g. see this - Audi involved in crash which killed six ‘may have been racing’ witness claims) - it might have quite a bit of more legs. I'm deferring my !vote - but this is really not as clear as the pileup (pun intended) of delete votes here conveys.Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per above, or until anything significant and notable comes out of this. Nightfury 08:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per above, though WP:NOTNEWS but receiving coverage for last few hours. Raymond3023 (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2017 (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.