You categorize this as non story, however it is clearly laughable that the Wikipedia presentment is not dishonest,
but you’re ok with that.
You misunderstood my meaning, or perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear.
First I didn't say it was a "non-story", indeed it's a story worth of media coverage. News media, social media? Yes. An encyclopedia? No.
Wikipedia's "notability" guidelines aren't about notoriety in social or new media, they're about uniqueness, if you will, something that makes this accident so different or so horrible that it stands out from other similar accidents.
And, as I said, unfortunately stories like this are now all too common.
And FWIW I'm not at all "okay with dishonesty". I have strong issues with what Wikipedia has become in the past decade or so. At its start it was pretty good; I even contributed a couple of articles, and last I knew, a couple of them were still there, although at least one got absorbed into a larger context article.