Deletion of 2017 Birmingham road collision

Comment: Clearly one of the reasons  was organized. Road collisions, even with fatalities, are a |routine occurrence. What matters is historical significance and pertinence, all of which are explained further in the |notability criteria for events
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:ROUTINE||WP:EVENTCRIT)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: As noted above, Wikipedia is  and this is clearly . If there's anything that emerges in the future that makes this not routine, recreating this page would be easy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: Wikipedia should be a website people can rely on, the ocasional stub (see ) is fine, but having a two sentence "article" or any other "article" of this length will reflect poorly on Wikipedia and doesn't even have a reason to be on the cite. this article in particular is not meeting , , and the fact that it's two sentences to me is enough reason to delete it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stub (WP:STUB||WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per above, though  but receiving coverage for last few hours
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per .  In the unlikely event this routine event becomes something that meets notability criteria, the (two-sentence) article can always be brought back.  With routine events, the order is supposed to be wait to see if the event is notable, then create the article.  Not the other way around
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)