Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender

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 is no consensus. Default to keep. WP:NOTNEWS is misunderstood by several voters and is less applicable because this is not routine news as that is what WP:NOTNEWS is about (See WP:NOTNEWS page). However, I do understand both sides. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has an additional section added entitled 'Surrender of driver licence' to the previous article 2019 Prince Philip road accident - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Prince Philip road accident. This probably removes it from WP:G4 consideration so a fresh AFD is needed. This is a procedural nomination on which I am not expressing view at this stage. Just Chilling (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. I am British, and here in Britain, this sort of event affecting royalty IS VERY notable. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Something is not notable simply because you say it is. All the coverage of this incident and it's aftermath is routine news reporting. Holotony (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Still clearly WP:NOTNEWS, all the arguments from the previous AFD still applyHolotony (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per the previous AfD. And isn't this an obvious re-creation? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS, and I don't see that the addition of one piece of very minor trivia (a 97-year-old has agreed to stop driving, probably on the orders of his wife - is that really so earth-shattering?) should be enough to stop this qualifying for WP:G4. And, in reply to Anthony, I too am British and I agree that this sort of royal event attracts lots of news coverage, but this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

it was not only in newspapers but on foreign TV in January AND February. The article is not there to make fun of the guy. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Being on TV news reports in many different countries, and even in two consecutive months, doesn't stop those being news reports, rather than the secondary sources on which we should base Wikipedia articles. And who said anything about making fun of the guy? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per WP:G4 as above. We had the discussion, people gave their view, the outcome was clear. This is a blatent attempt to try and circumvent the process by making a minor addition which changes nothing at all. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

No, there was a long lasting effect, surrendering his licence to avoid prosecution. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That effect is only long lasting for Philip himself (if he lives for a long time), rather than for anyone else. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. The previous AfD contains 3 good "keep" pleas. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete, rather than no consensus (if it were the latter, then the article would not have been deleted). Of the 3 keeps you mentioned, 1 of them was from the creator (a given), and another subsequently suggested a merge might be more appropriate. If following wikipedia policy, G4 covers this and it should be speedily deleted. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Merge with Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh. The latter is a complete hagiography at the moment and could probably do with a section on Controversies. CoronaryKea (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• This is already covered in enough depth at Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Retirement. If there is a WP:NPOV issue at Philip's article it should be addressed properly, rather than give undue prominence to this one incident by merging in such a large amount of content. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Wait for the CPS decision on whether Philip will be prosecuted. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, not sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. CPS have announced they will not prosecute. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• If we buy into the "it's in the news so we must have an article on it" idea then surely the fact that this is being reported today (I heard it on BBC Radio 4 news earlier) means that this event has become even more notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, if we do, that's fair comment. I don't buy into that. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, I thought stories like these were for the tabloid papers?! Oleryhlolsson (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Well yes, maybe: [1], [2], [3], [4],[5], [6], [7], etc. etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - The incident is a minor road traffic accident and is of no long-term significance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• You may be right, but no-one can predict its long-term significance. I suspect the licence surrender is the nearest the Royal Family has come to a plea bargain? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• That "no-one can predict its long-term significance" is precisely why we should not have an article yet. The way things are supposed to work is that first a topic should become notable, and only then should we have an article about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Long-term significance already happened, he surrendered his licence and not right away but 2 weeks later AFTER getting a replacement Land Rover. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Two weeks long-term? Don't be so silly. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete First off, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we avoid over coverage of recent events. Add to this the fact that in general events in a person's life are covered in the biography of that person. We need something truly, truly extraordinary to justify a separate article, and this is not something of that nature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Like Health of Donald Trump, a notable joke article about everything but his health? Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

extraordinary? Not just a "fender bender" but the Land Rover was on its side, other car passenger had broken bones, and the Duke of Edinburgh surrendered his licence. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Many accidents that cause broken bones and the surrender or loss of a driving licence happen every day, so not extraordinary at all. This has only been in the news because Philip is a public figure, so a mention is warranted in his article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Breaking news He's also given up his fighter pilot's licence. Poor ol' Phil.... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• You know as well as I do that he "wouldn't be seen dead" in an F-22. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep This article has long lasting effects. The Duke of Edinburgh broke someone's arm and permanently gave up driving. In 1964, he had a collision but there was no long lasting effect and no Wikipedia article. Princess Diana's road accident is also covered in Wikipedia. The accident also brought up into public discussion elderly driving. There are too many details to merge it with the Prince Philip article. If the Duke of Edinburgh, at age 96 in 2017 let his licence expire or returned it, it wouldn't be a Wikipedia article, I agree. However, he had a very serious accident and many other factors leading to a permanent, long lasting change, surrender of licence. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think Diana's collision may have had a slightly bigger impact on the world. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• True, because people died. However, death is not a requirement in Wikipedia.

WP:NOTNEWS is cited but this article passes the NOTNEWS criteria:

WP:NOTNEWS means (and I quote below)

For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

THIS IS NOT ROUTINE

Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.

THIS IS MORE THAN A SINGLE EVENT. IT WAS ABOUT THE LACK OF APOLOGY, CONTINUED UNSAFE DRIVING, WORLDWIDE DEBATE ABOUT THE ELDERLY, BELATED APOLOGY, SURRENDER OF LICENSE

A diary.

THIS IS NOT A DIARY.

So while citing "WP:NOTNEWS" sounds like a nice reason, this article complies with not being news just the same as Asiana Airlines Flight 214 is a news article. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Well, you know that accident actually involved 307 people, three of whom died. (One of those was run over by a rescue vehicle after she had died, although it wasn't a Land Rover Freelander or a Kia Carens). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. CLOSE THIS AFD AS A KEEP - WHEN A NOMINATOR DOESN'T BELIEVE IN DELETE OR CHANGES THEIR MIND FROM DELETE TO KEEP, THE AFD CLOSES. THE NOMINATOR DOES NOT ADVOCATE KEEP. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• you forgot <big> there?? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• and also forgot to read the nomination statement. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• • Comment @Squeaky Rubber Duck: Your intentions towards wanting to retain the article appear in good faith, however I am concerned that you have been blind-sided by your own belief for what is noteworthy inclusion as a long-lasting wikipedia article. I would even go as far as to say (although I can't validate this view), that you seem more keen to have an article you can put your name to and claim credit for than to consider the reality of its noteworthiness. Yes, it made news; yes, people talked about it and yes, it was not Philip's finest hour.. yes, it is news. However, it's not the event in particular that made the news, but the individual whom was the primary subject matter. I have previously said that if we had law changes in this country that could be directly attributed to this event and a discussion in parliament surrounding specifically this event, with proven long-lasting effects with sustained news coverage, then it would have to be considered differently. This AfD is only 2 days in and yet there is already an overwhelming majority who have the foresight to judge this with clear understanding on wikipedia's policy surrounding news vs not-news. I perceive your recent contributions towards this AfD as a forlorn attempt to make something greater than what it is to support your own position. I'd encourage you to invest your time and efforts into an article that will not be in vein. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. It's clearly a recreation of an article previously deleted per a deletion discussion, as is obvious by comparing the last deleted version with the first recreated version: [8]. SPA who created it both times should be blocked if the article is recreated again. DrKay (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Goodness, what news twist could possibly bring this back for a third time? Or maybe, you know, it's just written in the stars? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 13 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.