Talk:Wimbledon school crash

Notable?
There are thousands of deadly accidents daily, around the world. Xx236 (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say it holds some sort of notability as the events that unfolded I would understand just a car crash however the car crashed into a school which left a child dead with 16 others being injured and for a country that does not get many incidents like this it is major within the country such as the UK. Dubstar44 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Its an important part of the history of Wimbledon. It should not be deleted. Courtg9000 (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear editors, I've left a message on each of your talk pages directing you to this article's deletion discussion page, where the notability of this tragic incident is being discussed. I think that this conversation is best continued there :)) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Refs
The source from the BBC is technically behind a paywall for users in the UK, is this fair practice on wikipedia? It seems unfair to force uk readers to pay licence fees in order to verify sources? Surely there is a non BBC source on the story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.31.1.153 (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pedantically speaking, whilst BBC News is funded by the licence fee, you do not have to pay it to access the website and the law only applies to accessing TV programmes (see also BBC Sounds and the relevant audio output) XxLuckyCxX (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There are many sources on the story which aren't UK based, just search "Wimbledon school car crash" and you should be able to find some, such as CNN and ABC News greyzxq  talk 20:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

This article should be deleted
The Wimbledon school crash was a horribly tragic incident. It is not, however, an event that merits a Wikipedia article. This was a road traffic accident that claimed two lives - countless accidents of this nature have occurred over the years, but few have had such attention. I have removed the references to Land Rover as there was no fault with the vehicle involved and the article was defamatory. The title still references Land Rover - if the article is not deleted, this should be changed at the very least. It's incorrect to link a brand to a fatal accident when they have had absolutely no fault in it. Westcountry2021 (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The vehicle is identified as a Land Rover in sources and headlines, and the reactions quoted in the article include commentary that Land Rovers (the source actually only says 4x4s) are "completely inappropriate for urban locations". It's unnecessary for the article title, but it's important context that this was a large 4x4 vehicle.
 * The reader shouldn't have to read as far as the reactions at the end before realising in retrospect that this was a large 4x4 rather than a regular car. Belbury (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear editor Westcountry2021, welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has established processes for proposing an article's deletion, and this article has already recently survived (just) a community review that proposed its deletion; please read the discussion at Articles for deletion/2023 Wimbledon school incident.  An article's talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss whether the article should be deleted.  You are welcome to initiate a second WP:AFD if you believe that it would establish a clearer consensus than the first deletion discussion was able to reach, though I do not think that a reasonable enough amount of time has passed to merit a new discussion.  Regarding the mention that the vehicle was a Land Rover, I concur with editor Belbury: the vehicle's model was extensively covered in the tragedy's reporting and has inspired numerous acts of vandalism, as cited in the article.  I have readded mentions of the Land Rover into the article.  I have also removed the sentence you added that the woman lost control of the vehicle. To my understanding, this allegation originates exclusively from reporting in The Sun, which is a deprecated source we are strongly discouraged from citing on Wikipedia (see WP:THESUN). IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Referencing the make and model of the car does not imply any fault with the vehicle or attribute any fault to the manufacturer. It's a simple statement of fact. A car, any car, is driven by a human, and therein lies the main question. Why did the driver end up on the school property breaching a substantial fence and continuing some distance until crushing, after being held back by the gate for a few seconds, mauling children and adults and causing untold distruction. What actually happened to the woman who drove the vehicle and was she fit to handle any such machinery in her condition. What was her medical history? What was her state of mind before the tragedy? Was there a point where she could press the break and stop? How could such drivers be stopped, monitored, tested or banned from driving going forward?
 * Two young girls were killed at a school - a safe place where little can go wrong. Under dubious circumstances. This deserves answers for the sake of anyone who values their safety in their everyday life and certainly not deletion of the article. Stating facts must never be censored, no matter how uncomfortable it is for car manufacturers (most likely not even to blame for this at all) or driver's substantial defence team for whom this mention will come as an eye sore.
 * Facts are facts. 2 girls died. Numerous people were horrifically injured. A very large number of people were left with psychological trauma including rescuers, medics, parents, teachers and school children. The vehicle was driven into a school unlawfully by a driver and so far there are no answers.
 * What we need is not banning of facts and articles but an explanation of how and why this happened. What Wimbledon needs is a thorough investigation. What parents of the two girls need is an understanding why their children were killed on 6th of July after a school concert. 84.69.246.112 (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

First seizure
There have been some recent edits exploring the wording of this. The CPS statement says: “In reaching this decision we have considered the driver’s full medical records, obtained by police, and received evidence from neurological specialists, who agreed that the driver had a seizure and that this was the first such medical episode she had experienced." S C Cheese (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying, I just took a step back to "not previously diagnosed with" because that's as far as the cited press sources were going with it. Belbury (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. I've added the police report of the CPS's conclusion. S C Cheese (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Solicitor quote
What's going on with this paragraph, sourced to a video where the solicitor reads out a prepared statement in front of a greenscreen? Is he summarising the findings of an investigation, presenting the professional view he has taken of the incident, or something else? Pinging @Airchrist as the user who added it. Belbury (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes it's a summarised response from the driver's representative in regards to the CPS' decision. This was presented (and cited in other media) as factual and objective whereas the statement from Claire Freemantle was more personal. It is included in the investigation section, but I will adjust it to better clarify its context. Airchrist (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)