From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was no consensus‎ and none likely to emerge with it literally in the news Star Mississippi 02:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 Wimbledon school incident

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

2023 Wimbledon school incident (  | 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)

A car crash without special intentions or an extreme number of casualties? No reason to believe that this would ever pass WP:NOTNEWS and will get WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Fram ( talk) 14:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep per @ Wjfox2005. 90.255.6.219 ( talk) 19:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Neutral, but leaning towards include. This clearly isn't a "normal" car crash. It's currently the main headline on all major UK news outlets. A girl of eight has died, and 16 other persons are now known to be injured, many critically. So the casualty figure does seem notable, and I wouldn't be so quick to delete this article. It could certainly do with more info, though (currently only two lines of text). Wjfox2005 ( talk) 15:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. There is no secondary or sustained coverage to claim notability with WP:GNG. There are no widespread societal effects or anything else that would fulfill WP:EVENTCRIT. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 16:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a perfect example of WP:DELAY, where whether or not an event will be notable is unclear and until the facts have been established, there's no need for it to be included on Wikipedia. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 17:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Qwaiiplayer Is it notable now? 90.255.6.219 ( talk) 12:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I still stand by my !vote. The global coverage of the incident has mostly died down. Based on WP:EVENTCRIT there doesn't seem to be indication that this will have "enduring historical significance" or "widespread national (or international) impact." By contrast, the event seems to be moving towards one of local/regional importance without enduring significance. Contrasting this incident with others on List of traffic collisions (2000–present), I don't see this as lasting on Wikipedia. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A lot of car crashes happen and I do not believe this meets the WP:EVENTCRIT threshold of lasting impact in a wider geographic area. Qcne (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable, and stuff like this happens almost everyday Ejrms ( talk) 20:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The number of people involved is exceptional, and the prominence of it in British headlines today suggests it is unusual. I created it in the fashion of the 2023 Bournemouth beach incident. No Swan So Fine ( talk) 21:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Delete as per Knowledgekid87, but I do believe the article should be kept and/or recreated should the death toll rise. No Swan So Fine ( talk) 11:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Let's not decide based on a death toll, please, but notability alone. It's ghoulish to decide an AfD based on someone's death. Nate • ( chatter) 03:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A very common type of accident whose only claim to N is that it was near a big event where reporters could report on it very quickly, and is very likely an accident rather than a purposeful occurrence where the driver intended to hurt anyone. Nate • ( chatter) 01:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This event was not part of something larger ("The incident was not being treated as terrorism-related" [1]). It sounds like she lost control of her car and crashed, nothing out of WP:MILL coverage. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This sounds like it was a tragic accident, but there's nothing that makes it notable in an encyclopedic sense. This is Paul ( talk) 09:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - since this just occurred, virtually all sources are going to be primary. Lacking any notable person being involved; or as previously mentioned, no large death toll or nefarious intent, there's no reason to think this will ever be anything but NOTNEWS content. At best, this is TOOSOON, but to be totally honest, I don't see this ever being notable. 4.37.252.50 ( talk) 15:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it's a car crash, like the thousands of others that happen every day. There is no way that this will get sustained coverage later on, and absent that, it's not notable. AryKun ( talk) 07:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 08:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Wimbledon, London#History. Firstly, I think the contributions of previous editors have made clear – to the point of WP:SNOWBALL – that this article should not survive the AfD. I quote WP:EVENTCRITERIA: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths..."shock" news... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Nevertheless, dissenting editors have rightly pointed out that this is a significant incident that has dominated headlines in the UK and received widespread national coverage, though such coverage is unlikely to be sustained. So a mention in the local area's history section may be appropriate, and will likely take no more than two or three sentences. (The primary school itself probably doesn't meet notability coverage.) The nominated article can always be recreated if 'something further' does offer 'additional enduring significance', but this would need to be more than a higher death toll – for example, say, an official enquiry that makes significant policy recommendations. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 11:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Why would we merge this current-day thing to an article summarizing a thousand-year old community? This is not going to retain any more significant coverage past this week outside pundits for the Daily Mail and the junk news channels and maybe a couple days when the driver pleads and is sentenced. It's sad and it's happened, but we are not, and should not, be a database of every single accident. Nate • ( chatter) 21:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Reply By 'merge', I only intend that we might append two or, at a stretch, three sentences to the section, which also mention the event's significant coverage in national newspapers. Two issues may understandably make this alternative to deletion seem out of place:
1. The Wimbledon, London#History section could be expanded with recent history (it currently ends in the 1970s and 1980s).
2. The Wimbledon, London article effectively incorporates two communities centred on different high streets which may well justify separate articles: the "old" village and the "new" town down the hill. The site of this incident is on the edge of the former settlement. (Rather tellingly, the lead section includes neighbouring wards in Wimbledon's population count, up to two of which have separate entries: Raynes Park and Wimbledon Park – though the article focuses on the park, the short description refers to the settlement.) In an article on the village, which is a much smaller settlement, a mention of this incident might seem more apposite – in light of the significant coverage.
Asking as charitably as possible how this incident might merit inclusion in the encyclopaedia even if it is short of a separate article, one consideration might be that yes, this event is WP:MILL to the extent that fatalities from cars occur daily, but it has also generated significant coverage and featured on the front pages of many national newspapers, which is not WP:MILL. Wikipedia does not work on precedent, but I cannot help but think that the Wallasey pub shooting, also in headlines in recent days, could equally be described as WP:MILL if it were not for the headlines it generated. From WP:NCRIME: As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 02:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Just letting everyone know that a second girl died after the crash today, if that makes any difference to anyone's thoughts on the article. greyzxq talk 19:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: This tragic development is the leading or second-leading headline on the websites of the major national news sites: BBC News, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, etc.. WP:RAPID recommends not rushing to delete articles on breaking news. This may be sustained significant coverage, and not the kind of event that either WP:MILL or WP:ROUTINE seem to have in mind. I think about articles such as 2022 St Helier explosion and 2018 Leicester explosion. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 21:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I think its a bit of a stretch to compare this event to explosions which killed 5+ people. Again, there was no larger motive here based on the investigation being conducted. What level of detail would you focus on? There is the car, the person driving the car, the victims, and the reactions. Lets start with the car... if the model or make of the car was found to be at fault then yes that would be a WP:LASTING effect. I can't think about much regarding the person driving the car as they aren't being linked to terrorism. As for the victims, are they notable? If one of them gets an article then this article could be redirected there. Finally, reactions are routine... unless you have the King or Prime Minister directly making a statement (not through someone else) I don't see how its notable. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: From WP:LASTING: It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. This isn't a necessary condition for notability, just as WP:SCOPE – in this case, coverage by national newspapers – is not a sufficient condition: Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 20:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep : It makes a huge difference...thank you... just up the road from me... the event is unusual.. children don't die in Wimbledon. No swan is quite correct to create this. Whispyhistory ( talk) 19:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Whispyhistory: With all due respect, that would present a bit of bias. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge This article was probably created too soon, but this AfD was also initiated too soon. This event is currently falling somewhere between run-of-the-mill (those incidents don't get breaking news push notifications for updates, nor comments from national political leaders) and clearly notable. This indicates there should be coverage somewhere, but not necessarily as a stand-alone article. If the school was notable, then there would be no question that this should be merged to that article rather than deleted, but the school not being notable does not change the notability of the event. As noted above, the Wimbledon, London article (either as is or after a split) would make a suitable target. Thryduulf ( talk) 08:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Wimbledon, London#History, but in brief. I would not object to the deletion either. It should be remembered that the tragedy of the story or the number of victims is not fundamental in this case, what is fundamental is the notability as understood by the rules. The notability of much larger incidents is often called into question here. Deckkohl ( talk) 14:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I feel this AfD was created a bit too soon. The nominator on 6 July expressed the view that the article was unlikely to get WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Sadly the second death of an 8-year-old girl on 9 July led to further significant national news coverage and the fact that a woman in her forties is reported to be critically ill in hospital, with over a dozen further casualties means it may continue to get sustained coverage. I agree with Wjfox2005 that the incident was not a "normal" car crash. For the Land Rover to crash into a school, kill two children and for there to have been many other casualties taken to hospital makes this a notable and unusual event. There were public reactions expressed from a number of senior British politicians, which doesn't tend to happen for a "normal" car crash. Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 23:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The bulk of editors are arguing for Deletion but the most recent participants are advocating Keep or Merge. Would a selective Merge preserve content that Keep supporters is important? Would this outcome and turning this page into a redirect to the town be okay with those seeking Deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - This article is about a car accident with two fatalities. No one involved was notable. It's certainly not the first time a car has crashed into a school, nor will it be the last. It is a totally insignificant event to all but the friends and family of those involved. There's absolutely no reason to merge any information about a COMMONPLACE auto accident into an article on a thousand year old city. Notability is designed to ensure that sufficient SECONDARY sources to verify the accuracy of the article. At this point, all sources are news accounts and I suppose that many editors do not realize that news accounts are PRIMARY. I frankly doubt they'll ever be any secondary sources. What reason would there ever be to do a secondary analysis of a relatively minor traffic accident. WP:RECENT, WP:LOCAL and WP:COMMONPLACE all apply. 4.37.252.50 ( talk) 03:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. We're chasing a moving target if we try to evaluate the sources now. (We're here discussing whether to delete an article, not whether to create one; it's a bit odd to cite WP:DELAY while ignoring the immediately following section.) Beyond that, I do not believe that the above citation to WP:PRIMARY is correct. I can find nothing there to support the claim that news accounts are PRIMARY -- and I would be surprised if I could, since that statement seems categorically false. Plenty of the available sources here meet the WP:SECONDARY requirement of contain[ing] analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. But any detailed analysis of sources (and thus of notability) is pointless at this juncture, which is why we have RAPID in the first place. (I don't think it's foregone conclusion that this is a transient event with no broader implications -- it will be interesting, for example, to see if Norman Baker's call for SUV restrictions based on this incident gets any non-tabloid uptake.) -- Visviva ( talk) 18:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2023_Wimbledon_school_incident&oldid=1166367926"