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. There has been some discussion of adding mentions of the crash to other articles, if anyone would like a copy of the deleted text (or references) in order to do this let me know and I'll provide it. Hut 8.5 21:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A34 crash

[edit]

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

While undeniably a tragic event, this does not appear to be a particularly notable vehicular accident, as the coverage it has received has mostly been the usual routine coverage for such cases. It does not help that the article title is quite vague and could refer to any crash that took place on the said highway. Although it appears one of the drivers involved was jailed, the accident did not seem to have any long-term effects on British transportation. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not particularly noteworthy road accident like many that happen all the time around the world, it would need to involve somebody or something notable to even get a mention in wikipedia and that may still not be enough for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello, the article is not yet finished, the case lead to the penalties for using a mobile phone whilst driving be doubled from 3 points and a £100 fine to 6 points and a £200 fine. Also, as a result of the case, parliament is going to review sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving and it could potentially increase the maximum sentence to life imprisonment in order to deter other drivers from dangerous behaviour whilst on the road. I was going to add another paragraph about this called 'aftermath'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10^10a (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Ajf773 (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since WP:NOTNEWS and this article reads like a regular incident that happens on highways. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 17:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear PlyrStar93, If you read the sources, you would notice that it was a very significant case that has been widely reported as headline news around the UK. There was a complex police investigation involved that lead to the lorry driver being jailed for 10 years. Because of this case, UK parliament doubled the penalties for using a mobile phone whilst driving. I mentioned this in the aftermath section. They are also reviewing the sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving. Before recommending an article for deletion, you should read the full article and check all the sources. It was not a minor incident, in fact it is one of the worst traffic collisions in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10^10a (talk • contribs) 18:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing in the article or about the incident is convincing me that is particularly notworthy either, similar to those expressions of deletion above. It doesn't help that the references are jammed together, poorly organised and with zero in-line citation so you can't easily tell which one refers to the respective information. *If*, as you say, it is/was one of the worst traffic accidents EVER in the UK, then you need to offer multiple, reliable sources to back that claim up. All I see at present is a desperate claim that it resulted in a penalty increase (which could have already been under review anyway). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I remember reading about this case in the news. I have found this article and do not believe it should be deleted. The source layout was not very good so I have sorted it out and have also added more sources including videos made by the police to hilight the tragic incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.72.59 (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons from the other agreeing editors, plus my own rationale from yesterday. The above "IP account" wishes to continually remove my notice that their account has made "no or few edits outside this topic" (which is clearly evident), so I will instead make that belief clear in my delete vote (which cannot be undone), here. Furthermore, I have seen no evidence this event, as tragic as it is, is any more notable than the numerous multi-car collisions that so unfortunately occur on our roads. We can't document and have an article for all of them. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete main article, BUT put a brief mention into A34 road. The article is not notable on its own, however a passing mention will ssuffice in the main article, if it is not already added in. Only reason for doing this is because it is an accident which changed driving laws in the UK. Nightfury 06:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Legislation. This article already includes a sentence about the fine's being doubled, I think another sentence about which accident exactly lead to the change in legislation is useful. Regards So Why 09:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Legislation. That is the main purpose of this article, is the fine being doubled, so a redirect would make a lot of sense.

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.