Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julen Roselló

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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julen Roselló

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

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

Not seeing any notability beyond news for one event. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The international media are reporting about this incident and the rescue operation. It is an incident similiar to the death of Alfredo Rampi. -- Heimkinderverband (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being notable for one event is not usually enough for an article, and it is not the same, for a start he is not dead yet.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very clear violation of the not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps this article is too soon, but I believe that this is a notable case which should be on Wikipedia. It has received extensive media coverage, and it has prompted a rescue effort which has been unprecedented in Spain (see this source). There are articles about three similar cases: Kathy Fiscus, Alfredo Rampi and Jessica McClure. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With the overwhelming audience following this rescue, and considering the current entries from previous similar rescues, I think it is completely appropriate. It would need to be updated with the final outcome. Hopefully it can tell of a miracle. Either way I think the name will be around for a long time, as are similar both sad and happy endings. So my vote is to keep it.Who Dis & Dat (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an event that has become famous by literally all of Spain. Honestly, the article would need an expansion, but it's definitely notable. I am sure that even after the rescue, he will have an impact in Spain until after a few months (and even years). Super Ψ Dro 19:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, he has reached the international media, even prominent newspapers like The New York Times have talked about him ([1]). Super Ψ Dro 10:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other political figures such as Pedro Sánchez (Prime Minister of Spain!), Pedro Casado and others (including people outside politics) have also talked about him ([2], [3]). Super Ψ Dro 10:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tragic as it is, Wikipedia is not a news station. How do we even know if this will have sustained coverage or if it’s just the story of the day. Delete until further notice. Trillfendi (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Story of the day? Really? People here have been waiting for this rescue to end for 13 days, and it has become an international phenomenon in some way or other, so to qualify it like that seems very incorrect to me. Super Ψ Dro 10:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: But change the name of the article to something like Rescue of Julen Roselló to better link with other languaje Wikipedias, including the Spanish one.--Pacostein (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pacostein: That title is incorrect since he was unfortunately not rescued - so it would have to be something along the lines of Rescue attempt of Julen Roselló. However, I think that leaving the title as Julen Roselló is better. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Certainly the falling into an illegal, 70+ metres deep, 20-25cm narrow borehole, followed by 13 days of unprecedented rescue attempts, finally heartbreakingly unsuccessful, have resulted in a worldwide media appearance and will be rememered for a long time due to many of the unique circumstances. The person itself would perhaps not be of sufficient notable details for a biographical article, but certainly as a redirect to the article about his accident, attempted rescue and death. As the content of the article has already been all about accident, rescue and death, and not about his life, per BRD I have moved it to Death of Julen Roselló. Rescue attempt of Julen Roselló or Accident of Julen Roselló could be reasonable lemmata, too - but I think naming conventions would be best met with a short name that is fit for the future remembrance. Hope I didn't step too much on anybodies toes by being bold. --S I 00:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidenced of long-term impact. A sad event, but fails criteria for inclusion per Wikipedia:NEWSEVENT. WWGB (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:NOTNEWS, does not meet WP:NEWSEVENT, a perfect candidate for Wikinews.Coolabahapple (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article has bounced around to a few names already. Julen Roselló -->> Death of Julen Roselló -->> Rescue of Julen Roselló -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT if this is kept, it should be renamed to Death of Julen Roselló, since it is about the event of his death, and he was not rescued, his body was recovered instead. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is a prefect example of why we have not news.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is why people should not be renaming pages in the middle of discussions. The move to "Death of X" was made after the AfD was opened, and the move to "Rescue of X" was made after we already knew he was dead and his body had already been recovered, and after this AfD was opened for a week. The person who renamed it to "Rescue of" was truly doing something ill-advised, since he ewasn't rescued, and the person who renamed it already knew that. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And one reason for this was the almost live news feed nature if this article, with daily updates.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, unrelated. At the time the AfD started, he was already dead, and his body had been recovered. The move to "Death of" and "Rescue of" is unrelated to the news stream since the two events were already in the past, and were not new developments. Unlike other articles on unfolding events, where the circumstances change. This is not the case here, since "Rescue of" has always been a misleading title since it was used. Other articles are also renamed in the middle of AfD discussions which are of events that occurred years in the past, and due only to people renaming articles to rename articles. Biographies get moved to "Death of X" during discussions, for people long dead. The daily updates to newsfeeds about this subject doesn't affect the established fact that the child was dead and recovered before the AfD opened, so are unrelated to the renaming of the article. The choice of "Rescue of X" is clearly an odd choice for an article on a person that was already dead and in which the article already says he is dead, at the time the article was renamed. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a news station. Only because an event gets media attention it does not belong here.DrKilleMoff (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per coverage, per sources, per WP:GNG. That is my take on it, but more inputs are needed.BabbaQ (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Page may need some work done, but coverage seems strong enough to support it.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2019 (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.