Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:48, 7 June 2010

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

• Keep. It's a good think this has been written quickly as it gives a good overview of the accident. It may not be the biggest story in the world but it's still big enough to warrant a article in my opinion. Misplaced Pages's full of articles about fairly insignificant things, another one isn' t going to do any harm, especially when it's on an issue people affected may want to find more out about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.106.179 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Weak keep. There are plenty of sources, though, granted, they are almost without exception news stories, but this seems unusual enough to merit some coverage. Perhaps there's somewhere suitable it can be merged and redirected to? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  I've added one line to the West Highland Line article, that's about all that is justified at this time. MickMacNee (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Article renamed to Falls of Cruachan derailment. MickMacNee (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Fortunately, "No major injuries were reported" in this incident that happened on Sunday evening, June 6. Mandsford 01:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep for now. At the risk of being a crystal ball, I suspect that this will close the line for at least a week - see section A4 of Misplaced Pages:Notability (railway incidents) (although admittedly, this is a proposed guideline). —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  Is closing a line for a week evidence of notability on its own? (rather than an indication of major damage etc) It strikes me that it's only the remote location that means it might take that long to re-open the track, so I wonder what logic there is in saying that if this had happened in a more accessible area leading to quicker re-opening, the accident is somehow less notable, which is what A4 syggests, and which is why maybe it's still not a guideline. MickMacNee (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep The train didn't just derail, both carriages caught fire. Lack of deaths does not mean lack of notability. Also, a signalling system specifically installed to warn of rockfalls failed to prevent the derailment. The accident has been reported as far away as Australia, showing international coverage and adding to the case for notability. Mjroots (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  Fair point on the international coverage of the news (it is just a reprint of the wire story though), however, you seem to be making a giant leap of original research and improper speculation in asserting even before the investigation, that there has been a notable failure of the specifc rock fall warning system in use on this line, and thus by extension, this is already a notable accident because it will lead to major changes (and if this doesn't happen, then per WP:EVENT, it's highly unlikely this is a notable event). Infact, at present, the article does not even include a referenced statement backing up the claim that this accident should have been prevented by that special signalling system, this appears to be the work of editors putting two and two together to make five. Wikinews is the place to go if editors want to engage in investigative journalism, where they can become accredited reporters. As for this being a notable incident despite there being no fatalitites, when reading the sources, I think the severity of the incident has been exaggerated in this article. Scaryness of the situation and wow factor of "Major Incident" declarations aside, in actual fact, we are talking about, from 60 passengers, a few "walking wounded" who were hospitalised "as a precaution", according to the authorities. I think the same is probably true of whether or not fire played a major part in the incident or not, we have some reports that it caught fire, with one passenger describing a "ball of flame" or even an "explosion", yet no reports seem to be saying that fire was either part of the accident, or caused any injuries or any difficulty in evacuation. MickMacNee (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note WP:TWP, WP:UKRail and WP:SCO notified. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The line was meant to be protected by warning systems for a landslide, 8 people went to hospital, heavy recovery equipment will be needed in a remote area, a fairly major road is closed and both carriages caught fire. I think it warrants inclusion in its own right, and also because the record that Misplaced Pages provides is incomplete and inaccurate if it doesn't record modern accidents that in the past would have been much more deadly. In summary notable in it's own right for the accident and disruption as well as being neccessary to keep Misplaced Pages as an accurate record.Dolive21 (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

  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)

• Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS 129.11.77.198 (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Very strong keep as it is the worst derailment in Scotland this year Ggoere (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, May be notable for the moment but no chance of making it into a full article no chance of raising to B-class or GA status delete— Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaponbb7 (talk • contribs)
  • With respect, that's quite a weak argument. We have many thousands of articles on notable subjects that have no hope of ever gaining GA status. If we were delete everything that would never make GA class, we'd be deleting thousands upon thousands of articles- to quote WP:GA, "Adding good and featured articles and lists gives a total of 13,904 articles (about 1 in 239)", so by your standards, we'd be deleting 90-something% of our articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, the GA criteria have nothing to do with notability. However, on a meta-level, a GA is expected to be - 1. Well written, 2. Accurate and verifiable, 3. Comprehensive, 4. Neutral, 5. Stable, 6. Contain images if possible. I cannot think of any reason why we would ever keep articles that have no hope of meeting these criteria. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Hmmm, let's see now: Well written check! Accurate and verifiable check! Comprehensive (as it can be at the moment) check! Neutral Check! Stable (for current news type articles) Check! Contain images if possible Check! . Looks like I've just got my 7 GA! . Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• 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)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Places and transportation)
• AfD debates