Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valea Lupului minibus train collision

Valea Lupului minibus train 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per WP:HEYMANN. (non-admin closure)‎ Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find significant secondary coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Romania. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added several sources referring to this accident, which seems to have gotten quite a bit of coverage in the local (and even national) press. Turgidson (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 11 people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The accident was certainly notable: it was mentioned repeatedly in the Romanian press; it was considered to be one of the worst road-rail accidents in Romania in the preceding ten years (sources refer to it as a "carnage"); it led to a proposal in Parliament to improve the railway crossing (which has not been acted upon); and it is still mentioned in the national press to this day (references from 2023–2024). Turgidson (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to be a bit of WP:LASTING there, and the article is well sourced for GNG, so I am not sure what's wrong. Govvy (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable topic. The given sources meet the requirements. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2025 (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.