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.
Not sufficiently notable under WP:NEVENT. As pointed out by Rosguill, this event fails to meet WP:LASTING. Assertions that it fulfills this standard should be backed up by reliable independent sources. The effects currently described in the article are not of "historical significance", as required by that guideline. Other criteria don't apply; I don't see evidence of widespread impact covered in diverse sources, nor enduring historical significance. This is the kind of routine event described by WP:EVENTCRIT#4. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 14:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an easy pass of WP:LASTING, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NEXIST and WP:EVENTCRIT #2. In and out of the article and are plenty of SIGCOV, V, and IS sources that run up to the present. Unsure how the article neverthless could have been nominated. gidonb (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you identify which sources establish NLASTING in your view? The only accessible source postdating the accident by more than a week is this brief coverage. Are you confusing coverage of the 1976 disaster for coverage of the 1856 incident? signed, Rosguilltalk 21:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No not confusing anything. I'll get to that soon! gidonb (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See more below. gidonb (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gidonb. But rename to 1856 Schiedam train accident to avoid ambiguity with the 1976 disaster. Strange that the latter far more notable incident has a much shorter article! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plus one for the rename! I guess where someone took more time, there is more text. Both events are notable. gidonb (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The accident happened between Schiedam and Rotterdam; after Schiedam near Delfshaven. Delfshaven is a borough of Rotterdam. So a more precise title would be 1956 Delfshaven rail accident or 1956 Rotterdam rail accident. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the 1856 retitling in the event of a keep outcome, but the available two sources that postdate the 1850s both refer to it as an incident at Schiedam in their brief coverage, so this further suggestion seems ORish. signed, Rosguilltalk 12:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at WP:Lasting is written: “Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation.” -> this is the case in this accident: the accident resulted in exerting pressure on the directors on the Railways. This resulted in multiple safety adjustements that still exists and now seen as “completely normal”. In addition (while there is even still coverage recently) it’s not a rule that there must still be coverage decades after an event “It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect.” There was still aftermath coverage of this accident for at least a month. A last point, the Dutch NOS listed it in 2012 as one the 15 main train accidents ever with victims in Dutch history. (see here) 109.37.150.153 (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link to or otherwise identify this recent coverage you mention? Most of what you're saying seems to be original research. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 09:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All what I say is sourced in the article. As I said, recent coverage is not needed per wp:Lasting, but see the link by the Rosguill above and the NOS-link. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rename per Necrothesp's reasoning. This is a well-sourced and reasonably well-written and encyclopaedic article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Amsterdam–Haarlem–Rotterdam railway unless someone provides sources to demonstrate secondary SIGCOV or provides a source that explicitly connects this accident with industry reforms. If neither of those exist, then this is just one of the millions of non-notable things that happened that year and got published in newspapers. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that most of the 1856 (secondary) newspapers articles “addresses the topic directly and in detail” (SIGCOV). Especially for that era where there were much less pages of newspapers as nowadays. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Has been provided several times over. gidonb (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being curious I started searching for more sources. I see there was still coverage of the accident at least up to November (3 months after the accident). This sources gives more details of the (formerly unknown) victims. I added some extra information in the Victims section. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This was the first major railroad disaster in the Netherlands. That, the extensive coverage at the time, and the fact that the coverage continues to date, e.g. [1] and examples brought and talked down (yikes!) above, make the event notable. This very disaster brought change to the Dutch railroads: lights on the last car were introduced after the disaster (although dropped for a while, later), and the impact on the awareness of the hazards of standing trains are connected in the literature directly to THIS VERY disaster. The fact that there was an even bigger train diasaster in or near Schiedam does NOT justify deletion. There is no case for deletion. gidonb (talk)
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.