Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Cross derailment

:{{la|King's Cross derailment}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/King%27s_Cross_derailment Stats])

:({{Find sources|King's Cross derailment}})

fails WP:EVENT. no one died not even anyone injured. LibStar (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep There is no requirement for anyone to die for an event to be notable. The reason why this event is notable is stated in the "Significance" section of the article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, per Pontificalibus' statement. --doncram 01:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• merge to Jarvis plc given that this incident is only significantly notable as one of a series of incidents leading to that company's loss of contract and ultimate failure. Ordinarily this wouldn't be more than a passing episode in the papers and nightly news. Mangoe (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep It is clear that this article is remarkable. *Di§cu$$ with me"#} 11:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

::Remarkable in what way? It looks quite ordinary to me. Jarvis is not the first or last company to mess up. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Merge to Jarvis plc per Mangoe. The 'significance' section is mostly about the company rather this incident so there is considerable overlap. Qwfp (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Merge as per Mangoe. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Merge also as per Mangoe.109.150.152.232 (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 16:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Merge to Jarvis plc leaving redirect, event is not notable enough for a standalone articleTheLongTone (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Keep As per Pontificalibus has said, no one has to die to make it a notable event. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable derailment. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

:*Merge seems a better solution than deletion. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Merge per TheLongTone. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Merge. Its notable but Jarvis were the contractors. I presume it'll be left as a redirect. Szzuk (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

: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.