Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Prince Philip road accident


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  12:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 Prince Philip road accident

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Adding for discussion per tag from 25th Jan. Does basically seem like WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Oathswarm (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment while extensively reported, I don't think a collision that did not result in major injury or police charges need to be covered outside of the main subject page.Oathswarm (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as although it was extensively reported because of the stature of the person primarily involved, short-term high profile news does not and should not result in an article where the subject doesn't demonstrate at least some historical significance. If the debate were to rage on for weeks and laws changed as a result of it, then there may be a case to say it's historically significant, but that isn't the case at this moment in time. It only made news because of the driver, not the incident. Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sparked worldwide debate and articles such as "Prince Philip and telling your dad to give up driving" https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/21/prince-philip-and-trying-to-tell-your-dad-to-give-up-driving . Thousands of other collisions, even ones that make the local news, do not cause this reaction. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Two weeks after the accident, there is continued worldwide debate about Prince Philip, privilege, and elderly driving. This is from Canada https://www.theglobeandmail.com/drive/culture/article-prince-philips-accident-revives-the-debate-about-age-and-driving/ and from the UK 3 days ago. https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/jan/27/prince-philip-car-crash-elderly-drivers-data-uk-us Much more lasting impact than just another accident. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My reasoning has already nullified your counter-argument. We aren't even talking about a criminal conviction - it is just a road traffic incident with no fatalities and no serious injuries. I accept if things escalate and there is a debate in parliament about laws being changed regarding old age driving or the like, and/or he himself is charged/convicted then there would be a different debate to be had on this matter (I am not saying that would justify an article, but the discussion would be different). At this moment in time, it doesn't justify an article. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. There can clearly be a mention of this in the article on Prince Philip, but the incident itself is just an ordinary road traffic accident. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:EVENT, this does not have enduring historical significance. Already sufficiently covered in Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.--Pontificalibus 10:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I've tried to be tolerant here, but there are obvious problems with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:RECENTISM. Not everything in the news warrants a separate article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete In addition to the WP:NOTNEWS concerns, I also think the article violates WP:BLP, given that this is a minor incident which has been blown up by a few media outlets (and yes, other media around the world has also reported on it, but those are short notices - there is no lasting impact shown). I removed a tabloid/gossip magazine style section but part of that content, which I still think violates BLP, was almost immediately restored. Any relevant and encyclopedic content can go in the article about Prince Philip; there is not enough such content about the incident to have a separate article about it. --bonadea contributions talk 12:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Unemployed old bugger crashes car.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think he qualifies as an Old Age Pensioner at that age. Someone Not Awful (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure that's a entirely rational, or accurate, reason for deletion. I was scolded for suggesting the Kia passenger was being "untruthful". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Improper AFD. There was a tag that the article was PROD until 1 February. The AFD is improper until then.
 * Keep Sufficiently meets WP:N Significant coverage in hundreds of articles in many countries. Reliably covered. Has secondary sources. Article contents does not determine notability so if the article is written like crap now, just be patient and it will get better. Also useful in that the incident generated public debate on elderly drivers, was the subject to ebay listing of crash debris, generated debate about the Duke of Edinburgh's unwilling to say "sorry" but later remedied by a letter of apology, etc.


 * While Wikipedia users bring up the point "other crap exists", this is not crap and beats articles such as Health of Donald Trump. More likely to be read and have a lasting impact than this article, Korean Air Flight 8702 or JetBlue Flight 191


 * Another important point is that if information given here is inserted into the Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh article, it will be the source of fights and arguments. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. For any of the Royal Family to be involved in a potential court case, or an RTA of any kind, is extremely rare. Wide news coverage across the world. Part of a wider debate about older drivers. I don't think the article is actually "written like crap now". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * comment a potential court case isn't yet an actual one though. And at the risk ofWP:OTHERSTUFF Princess Anne's actual criminal conviction in 2002 doesn't have a page. This is cast iron WP:NOTNEWS 213.42.159.218 (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't argue with that comparison, although I think it's more borderline than "cast iron". I must admit that I saw the main benefit of this article as keeping detail out of the main one. It's highly unlikely there will be any criminal proceedings. I would imagine the insurance companies will agree between themselves on a no-fault settlement. But Philip does seem lucky be unscathed, or even alive. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if Prince Philip was prosecuted, this article probably wouldn't meet WP:GNG. In November 2002, Princess Anne was convicted and fined £500 under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but it doesn't have an article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll remind you that bits of English bull terrier weren't offered for sale on eBay. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that that ear that I bought was a fake? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a definite keep. Why is there this discussion anyway? Full of sources, major long term questions. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Because something can have lots of sources without being actually notable, especially if it's WP:NOTNEWS as is the case here. And what are the "major long term questions" specifically applicable to this incident and Prince Philip? 94.57.67.156 (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The statement about "long-term questions" is purely conjecture as I am not aware we can see into the future as to what may happen. Many here can identify with the fact that this is just a news story that has no place on wikipedia, irrespective of it being "well sourced" or "well written" (neither of which are compelling reasons). Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some of this article's content could be merged into Old age and driving, as it was "high profile" as far as news coverage was concerned. Although that might be making the assumption that Philip was to blame. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if he was to blame it might not be his age that was the cause, but some other factor that affects drivers of all ages. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, although you never know. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.