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 merge to Expo Line (Los Angeles Metro). Consensus appears to be clear to merge the article's content into Expo Line (Los Angeles Metro), no consensus to outright delete or keep either way. Nakon 06:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Los Angeles train crash[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT this local train accident, has no demonstrated lasting significance, this is not a newspaper. 101.169.85.54 (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. ansh 666 03:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Adds to the history of Los Angeles, to the history of rail roads and the related issue of passenger safety. Keep. Juneau Mike (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this might be a local story (as most accidents are), it occurred in the second largest U.S. city and involved the public transportation system. There is a mention of the high number of accidents involving this system so this accident might be indicative of a larger problem that needs to be addressed and will impact rail users in a large metro area. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, essentially per Liz. Grade crossings are an unfortunate fact of the railroading scene in North America but they're also routine. We generally don't have separate articles about these or trespasser strikes unless there's lasting notability (the Midnight Rider (film) accident comes to mind though there's no standalone article yet) or some other unusual feature. Per the Federal Railroad Administration there were 267 grade crossing fatalities in 2014. If there was an article on the soccer match whose attendees were disrupted then it might merit a mention there, but there's no such article. Mackensen (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was a derailment, not a crossing accident - not sure if that matters. ansh 666 12:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lede says it hit a Sonata and derailed. It's not unusual for a train to derail after a crossing accident and it doesn't change anything. Mackensen (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It's very well sourced and referenced. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both Michaelh2001 and Liz. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This looks like a minor and commonplace transportation accident, and nothing written here or in the article suggests otherwise. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with my apologies to Rosiestep. We're not the news, of course, and this accident seems to be nothing special one way or another. That there's coverage, sure, but "it's well referenced" doesn't mean it is notable. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for mentioning somewhere on here, at worst it should be a section in a general article on the track or 2015 in California etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect is a good solution--I'm fine with that. Thanks Ernst. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unlike other level crossing collisions in the USA this year, there were no fatalities here. Therefore it is harder to argue the case for notability, unless major changes are made as a result of it. My crystal ball suggests this will not be the case. This accident can be adequately covered in the articles on the operator, rail line, rolling stock involved and relevant list of rail accidents. Mjroots (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Yes, it can be covered in the main article, do you mean to say redirect/merge rather than delete then? It's worth a paragraph or two on here somewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: I meant delete the article, which is what this discussion is about. The info is worth saving at the locations I suggested. Mjroots (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Expo Line (Los Angeles Metro). Incident can be covered in a section of the history of this article. Dough4872 03:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redriect notnews and not everything needs an article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any hint that this incident has any historical or social significance. It was a routine minor accident between two vehicles. If the text must be kept, the merge suggestions above are far superior to keeping this as a separate article. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not seeing it, coverage and decent sourcing doesn't equal lasting notability and seeing as accidents like this are incredibly frequent often with fatalities of which this has none (odd measurement for "worthiness" I know) but I don't see why we'd keep this just because of where it happened. Saying that though, checking List of rail accidents (2010–present) seems to indicate we have a few articles that also have no fatalities and of local interest but haven't been up for deletion, it's a WP:WAX/WP:OSE argument I know but this probably is more notable even within a list with a few edge case notability issues. tutterMouse (talk) 06:16, 3 April 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.