2020 Pennsylvania Turnpike crash (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:LASTING and also WP:NEVENT Cutlass^Ciera 23:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The fact that the NTSB got involved shows notability, this wasn't a fender-bender with a few people. Oaktree b (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The NTSB investigating something does not make it notable. Countless road accidents have been investigated by them but that detail doesn't mean each and every one deserves an article. Cutlass^Ciera 23:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Pennsylvania. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There's also coverage in 2022 of the NTSB findings [1], [2]. Coverage of the accident in 2021 [3], that's almost two years work of coverage, that's sustained coverage. Some talk of lawsuits after, but I can't find RS about them. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  5 deaths and 60 injured is more than notable. It was also the most severe one to that point in time on the road [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this wasnt a random accident, people died in this crash Codonified (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are lots of fatal road accidents, This one may be notable, but that doesn't make it notable in itelf. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  By virtue of the fact that this was an "accident" carries with the implication that this was random. How can it not be random? Did some dastardly person orchestrate this? Or perhaps it was the Fate of 60 or so people to collide on that day at that specific moment? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Lack of randomness (or lack of being random) is not part of the criteria for notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are plenty of non-trivial references, so I think WP:GNG is satisfied, as well as WP:EVENTCRIT. WP:LASTING is not a criteria for notability. -- mikeblas (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although there is coverage by some news media outlets, I can't see this event as notable. I empathize that people were killed and injured but this type of stuff happens all the time on United States highways. Having this on Wikipedia seems to be pandering to the salacious. In any case, this is a WP:ROUTINE event. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Despite being an unusually large car crash, it was "just" a large car crash. I don't see it rising to the level of notability set out by WP:EVENTS. In particular, the coverage is concentrated over a very short time - almost exclusively two single days, in fact (the date of the crash, Jan 5, and the release of the NTSB report on Feb 6). --Tserton (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Again, this is not a question of if YOU think this subject is notable but what reliable sources say. Our own opinions are not relevant. A source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For the most part we usually note these large-scale accidents within the History section of the highway it took place (here, Interstate 76 (Ohio–New Jersey)), but no accidents are noted in that article itself, and the PA Turnpike article itself is already long enough. This accident isn't really of note outside a short paragraph, possibly in the article for Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania. Nate • (chatter) 23:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania. The article meets WP:RS, but I agree with Steve Quinn's WP:NOTNEWS assertion. According to WP:EVENTS, not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. Thus, merging it will keep the details of the incident intact, but from all indications it does not warrant a separate article.--DesiMoore (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Fatal traffic accidents are an everyday occurrence. Five years later this one has had no lasting impact as all but one of the sources are from 2020. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'm not seeing the lasting coverage needed to support notability here. WP:NOTNEWS applies here, we aren't CNN. Let'srun (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It should not be merged with Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania. Where it possibly could have coverage to some degree, but doesn't currently is Pennsylvania Turnpike -- provided that there were any long term impacts on the operations / practices of the Turnpike (there's not in the article, I can't read the report, and coverage after the report was released is insignificant - noting that crash reporting is routine[5]). If there wasn't, then coverage at List of traffic collisions (2000–present) - its only incoming link currently - without a separate article is sufficient. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Beyond the immediate coverage and NTSB report, the lasting effect and scope tests of WP:NEVENTS are met through the post-event lawsuits (which are not resolved). A key appellate court ruling in the not-yet-resolved consolidated lawsuits in 2023 applied a stricter Pennsylvania standard to efforts to move where cases are tried (Law.com, more analysis.) While the lawsuit section needs to be expanded, this subject warrants a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If lawsuits were all it took to make accidents notable, there'd be a lot more accident articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Also, valid point by Clarityfiend above. Asteramellus (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]