Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Nicola Bulley

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep‎. ✗plicit 14:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Nicola Bulley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Death of Nicola Bulley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An accidental death by drowning is a non event, not worthy of a WP article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabela84 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The relevant WP guidelines are Wikipedia:Notability (events) and WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The topic (an accidental drowning) fails notability requirements and is eligible to be reconsidered for exclusion. My own line on this is that if Nicola were (a) black, or (b) working class, or (c) male or (d) over 60 years old, then nobody would be interested in her and we would not be having this discussion. That said, parts of the article's text might be absorbed in the Missing white woman syndrome article. Izzy (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're "own line" is entirely that. We can't argue for the deletion of an article based on what might have happened or not happened if the circumstances had been entirely different. We also would not have an article if she had been a homeless drug addict, with no family, who had jumped into the sea at Blackpool and never been missed? 86.187.230.208 (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There might be nothing wrong with mentioning this case at the Missing white woman syndrome article, provided WP:RS sources actually use that description. Otherwise that's just your own personal prejudice? 86.187.165.146 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there was a clear consensus to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Nicola Bulley. Now that we know she died, does that make the event less notable? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those keep votes propped up primary sources that were published while the event was still ongoing. Not only do none of them contribute to GNG, but to say that coverage is "sustained" before the event is even over warrants a chiding at the minimum. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources do not contribute to WP:GNG or WP:SUSTAINED, as they are primary sources from while the event was developing. It's not a historical event worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia as defined by WP:EVENTCRIT. It fails WP:LASTING, it fails WP:GEOSCOPE, and it fails WP:SENSATIONAL. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The constant, sustained, and varied coverage is proof of notability. The use of social media, particularly the misuse of TikTok is interesting. Yes, it was an accidental death. Everything surrounding it makes it more than just that. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Substantial referencing indicating substantial coverage and there was an official enquiry over it. We have featured articles that are over local bank robberies so there's no way this fails notability.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Izzy - why have you voted? You're the creator of this discussion, you can't vote twice. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Exemplo347. I will make sure the closing Administrator doesn't count my vote twice. Thanks for pointing out the matter. Izzy (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even in the last 24 hours, coverage is ongoing in reliable sources (link) proving that event notability guidelines, as linked above, are met. CT55555(talk) 04:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The original incident itself has turned out to be rather more mundane than some wild imaginings had it, but the reactions have made it notable. Very few deaths by drowning draw mention by the PM and LOTO, or trigger two independent investigations into police conduct. Polyphemus Goode (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the simple, sad, drowning has become a much-discussed example of the effects of police and media behaviour - it was being discussed again on the BBC Radio 4 main morning news programme, Today, as I read this discussion. PamD 07:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this case was a widely publicised event. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly has WP:LASTING impact considering reliable sources are still writing at length about it, even as recently as the last 7 days. See The Independent and BBC, the latter was published during this discussion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the volume of enduring RS coverage in national media clearly gives this WP:GNG status. Surprised there was no rationale from the nom as to why this might not be notable, given the previous "keep" result in the previous AFD.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Covered by news and social media for weeks. Analysed to death. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're already getting academic, non-news, sources about this.[1] Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: High volume of coverage from many national and international agencies. Clearly notable. 117.254.34.205 (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per readily available sources and the extent of the interest. gidonb (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sustained coverage, in particular the recent sources highlighted here. Rupples (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_of_Nicola_Bulley&oldid=1164007767"