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. There is overwhelming consensus this article should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Leeds car crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is not noteworthy in any sense. Car crashes happen all the time, that a handful of individuals were tragically killed does not make this of any encyclopedic value whatsoever. See WP:NOTNEWS. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - the issues surrounding the crash, particularly the fact the car was stolen and driven by two young boys who were not even of legal driving age at the time of the crash, and the subsequent high death toll for a single-vehicle accident, and therefore the court case which will now ensue, and also the tragic nature of the victims, I feel is notable enough to warrant an article. Car crashes happen all the time but sometimes there are incidents notable enough for inclusion; the fact that they occur all the time in itself is not really a valid reason for deleting this article. Buttons0603 (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see where it was said that two young boys were driving the car. Fact that they were arrested does not imply anything! I think, later, one was released as unrelated to incident. MightyWarrior (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • They were arrested for causing death by dangerous driving. That clearly implies they were driving. Buttons0603 (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and also the tragic nature of the victims - WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who says it is a memorial? Maybe if that were the sole purpose of this article, but it isn't. It's just a true fact, and that's what Wikipedia is about? Buttons0603 (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that was the standard, then every garage band that burned a CD on their Intel Inside would be covered. While there's no such thing as "too inclusive", there's also a Mendoza Line where something that happens, no matter how tragic, isn't worthy of inclusion, and even though I set that line (sometimes radically) lower than some of our more prominent deletionists, this still falls below it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Circumstances aside the case, what determines notability is coverage. This was within a routine news cycle which is already falling out of view. Tragedy and deaths are "good" for the news but that does not always translate to the encyclopedia. We aren't here to play wannabe journalists; see WP:RECENTISM for more. If a supposed court case takes place and if substantial coverage dictates it is significant, then create an article, not this news report. And until I get this damn thing to work, no one can determine the lasting impact of the incident, so really the article creator is at fault for pushing this too soon.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Headline news briefly but not notable in longer term, so not suitable for encyclopaedic article MightyWarrior (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If the inquest(s) lead to some significant change in legislation or something similar, that might be an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article: at this point in time, though, this fails WP:NOTNEWS. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per NOTNEWS. How terribly sad.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Störm (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tragic, but not meeting the notability standards, either in policy or consensus. Road crashes happen, and we don't write an article on each one. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Someone crashed a car and a few people died. This isn't notable enough event. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete News item like these usually received high coverage by news sources when and after they happened. Whether the news continues after certain long period (like ensuing litigation) that's what will determine whether it has social impact to merit an article. Remember not everything verifiable is included in Wikipedia. The event is verifiable but not encyclopedic material, WikiNews is in dire need of such articles –Ammarpad (talk) 10:10, 4 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.