Embrun Highway 417 pileup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NEVENT, lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. All sources are from February 2006. Article claims a legacy of being Canada's second-deadliest multi-vehicle collision, but it's cited to WP, and I can't find any other sources discussing this event in that context. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Canada. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As always, it isn't Wikipedia's mandate, mission or goal to maintain an article about every single thing that happens in the world — the key to establishing notability here isn't to verify that the accident happened, it's to show that the accident had some kind of enduring impact that would satisfy the ten year test — by comparison, the 1999 Ontario Highway 401 crash documents major changes in MTO regulations and safety improvements to the stretch of highway where it occurred, lasting well into the 2010s, which is precisely the kind of thing we need to see. But this isn't documenting anything of the sort, and is basically just "thing that happened, the end", which is not enough. Also, note that the title had a spelling error in it, as the town is called Embrun, not Embrum — but the creator moved the article to the correct spelling shortly after I pointed that out here, so I've updated the above header links accordingly (though I haven't moved this discussion page). Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This event’s uniqueness stems from the rarity of the amount of vehicles involved. Multiple vehicle collisions involving deaths are a rare occurrence in Canadian history, this one being the second deadliest. A list of ‘Canada’s deadliest traffic accidents’ has its own wikipedia article citing this, however you are correct, there is no external literature referencing this. The title was easily changed. Capnwilly (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simply claiming a size rank doesn't constitute permanent notability on its own. We would need to see enduring impact, which the number of cars that were involved in it doesn't satisfy in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there were secondary sources from after the event discussing the event in the context of its rarity or legacy, then we'd have a case for notability. For example, 1999 Ontario Highway 401 crash has [1] on the 20th anniversary, [2] on the 25th. However, for this event I can't find anything of the sort. (Aside, some amusing citogenesis in that first article, It's a crash so devastating it has its own Wikipedia entry) ~ A412 ^talk! 19:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is a secondary source that cites this, the 'Canadian Disaster Database' lists all major accidents in Canadian history by fatality, if this event were on it, which it should be, it would notably be the second deadliest 'multi vehicle collision' in Canadian history after the 401 crash. (The citation has been added). When the 20th anniversary is due next year, more sources will become available in a similar fashion to the 401 crash. 209.196.232.22 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The remembering.ca source is from February 2006. The Canadian Disaster Database source doesn't contain this incident. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find much lasting sourcing, what's given is about all there is. Being the second deadliest traffic accident would be notable, if we had sourcing beyond simple news reports from the time. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]