Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance 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. There is a clear consensus to Keep this article, at least at this stage of the disappearance. There has been no challenge to the claim of SIGCOV of this event, most of those advocating Delete basically argue that this story is not deserving of an article in an encyclopedia due to the large number of people who go missing every year. But the coverage of this event verifies its present notability. However, I'll add that even some of those editors stating that they wanted the article to be Kept have said that as this story evolves, it might not have a lasting impact so depending on news developments, the article might make a reappearance at AFD in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Nicola Bulley[edit]

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

Disappearance 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)

This is a clear example of an event involving one person. Regardless of how many news items are cited, the event (the disappearance of one person) does not rise to notability. See WP:1E. David notMD (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:LASTING. A significant number of people go missing every year. This particular disappearance has not demonstrated that it will have any lasting impact other than to her family and friends. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Lasting also says "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." JeffUK 19:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most people who go missing do not spark such dominance of the media. They're just a footnote at most. This is not the case here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not meeting WP:NEVENT. The sad incident lacks enduring significance or widespread impact. (Edited to add: This is a great candidate for WikiNews, which doesn't have anything on the story.) Schazjmd (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm in two minds so I'll put everything here and maybe it'll help both the closing admin and other editors to see my concern about both outcomes. I understand and accept WP: NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. This is a tragic and, thus far, unresolved disappearance, and a massive news story locally and nationally. However, that's all it is, a very well covered news story. We can't WP: CRYSTAL our way into assuming this story will become a notable event. My mind is torn because of how unusual this story is, particularly with the sheer lack of any substantial clue as to where Nicola could possibly be; the size of the search for her *and* the size of the news coverage is notable. One day, if this story develops into something very significant, of course there should be an article, and I wonder how close we are to that today. But Wikipedia isn't a news ticker, and WP: RECENT looms large. I honestly don't know which side of me is speaking the most convincing: delete until proven notable; or retain because it's not merely "woman goes missing". I'll leave this for your consideration! doktorb wordsdeeds 00:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete they figure she fell in the river? Unless there's some crime that happened, this is likely an accident and not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b: please can you identify the policy or guideline which makes a crime more notable than an accident. Thanks. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It has to be covered in sources, so that's GNG. At the time of that comment, there were five lines of text. It appears to have been expanded since then. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b: that does not even try to answer my question. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    CRIME or GNG, I don't know what the answer is. Oaktree b (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b: Your latest reply seems to acknowledge that there is in fact no basis in policy or guideline for your assertion that Unless there's some crime that happened, this is likely an accident and not notable.
    If that is the case, it would be helpful for you to withdraw that assertion, by striking it.
    On the other hand, if you do stand by that assertion, then please identify the policy or guideline which makes a crime more notable than an accident. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While this does not directly discuss an accident, the WP:NCRIME section of the WP:EVENT guideline includes, The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, and media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. At present, it appears that this is a disappearance, with law enforcement agencies deeming it unlikely to have been caused by criminal conduct, so the use of the shorthand "accident" for this event seems supported by the available reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not that interested, I !voted a while ago and have moved on. Oaktree b (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this was Southeast Asia, Australia or Sub-Saharan Africa it would be blamed on a crocodile. David notMD (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable news event, plenty of news coverage and well sourced. Also the article brings attention to the case. Moondragon21 (talk) 11:30, 7 February 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) 09:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More than enough sourcing to satisfy GNG. Regarding NOTNEWS/NEVENT, two separate grounds, either of which is sufficient to establish notability: (a) Sustained national news coverage: the sources used in the article span 8 days, which is a lifetime in news (and do bear in mind that there's an upper limit of 12 days, if I've got my maths right, since that was the day of the disappearance); this duration and the intensity of the coverage means that it is not a run-of-the-mill, one-and-done story. (b) Unusualness: today's BBC article has an expert calling it the most unusual that he's seen in 20 years (which is already in the article). Polyphemus Goode (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That expert was hired by family members, and according to Superintendent Sally Riley, "isn’t included within all the investigation detail any more than the members of the public are". (Independent.ie, Feb. 7, 2023). Beccaynr (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:1E helps us decide between a biographical article and an event one and which ever editor(s) started this, made the right choice. There is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and it's too early to know if coverage is sustained, we'll know that in a year, but until then, there is no rush to delete. CT55555(talk) 14:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If her body is found in the river (authorities current best guess), then this becomes a relative non-mystery, and not article worthy. David notMD (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How dare people say this is not noteworthy! The whole of the United Kingdom was/is invested as to what happened to this typical women. I cannot believe some people say that this was a 'accident' as it is so unkind. Two girls lost a mother and they do not understand where she is, can you imagine being those girls right now? I think not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purrrrxx (talk • contribs) 16:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the authorities said it dude, I just looked at what they said. Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG, as to the objections: The nomination refers only to WP:1E, as this article is not about Nicola Bulley, but about the event of her disappearance, this article is in line with the spirit and letter of WP:1E. Per WP:NEVENT it's not failing WP:ROUTINE because missing persons do not routinely get this level of attention, it's not failing WP:SENSATIONAL because it's being reported across the board. NEVENT also refererences the Runaway_bride_case, whilst there was suggestion of wrongdoing in that case, it's a great example that given enough media attention a 'simple case of one person going missing' can indeed raise to the level of notability JeffUK 19:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was previously neutral, but now lean towards "Keep" for two reasons. Firstly the sustained news coverage in the UK for over a week in many reliable sources makes this case different, in my view, from many other routine missing persons. Secondly, there's a BBC News reference in the article in which Peter Faulding, the man who is leading a team of underwater experts searching the River Wyre, said the case was "so unusual", stating: "I would expect to find Nicola in the water right in front of the bench where she went down. This is so strange. In my 20-odd years of doing this, I have worked on hundreds of cases [and] I have never seen anything so unusual." The words of Mr Faulding appears to indicate this is different from most other missing persons cases. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neutral per WP:N, which is more than whether a subject has WP:GNG coverage, and includes whether a subject should be excluded per WP:NOT. For this event article, the WP:EVENT guideline helps assess coverage and how this relates to WP:NOTNEWS. In my review of coverage, according to the inclusion criteria, there do not appear to be indications of a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance, and the current burst of national coverage is not by itself sufficient to support notability. There also does not appear to be the kind of WP:INDEPTH coverage needed to help support notability, and we are still in the midst of the immediate burst of news which does not automatically support notability. I think the WP:SENSATIONAL section of the guideline should be seriously considered, including because there is e.g. "wild speculation on social media" (Guardian Feb 7, 2023), and the expert (Peter Faulding) hired by family members seems to be contributing to the sensational coverage in multiple outlets (e.g. Yahoo, Feb. 7, 2023 offers a summary), even though, as noted above, he is not privy to nonpublic information from the police investigation (Independent.ie). There also is a lot of tabloid coverage in WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:THESUN, WP:DAILYSTAR, WP:METRO, and WP:DAILYMIRROR, as well as news outlets uncritically reporting speculation by Faulding, but the sensationalized coverage does not support encyclopedic notability. Beccaynr (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This Wikipedia article is not original reporting, nor is it written as a news report, nor is it a "who's who" page, nor is it a gossip/diary page. As such, WP:NOTNEWS does not advise deleting this article. Mainstream quality press newspapers are giving this extended coverage; while tabloids are covering the issue, we do not cite four of the five sources you call out as "tabloid coverage". And the sole one we do use, the Daily Mirror, is used in an extremely limited way: to support the claim that Members of the public have helped with the search—hardly a contentious fact. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    According to RS, Nicola Bulley: police urge public not to ‘take law into their own hands’ in search (Guardian), Police ‘will not tolerate’ people breaking into houses looking for missing mother Nicola Bulley (Independent.ie), so relying on a tabloid seems problematic, but WP:NOTNEWS considers the enduring notability of persons and events, and relates to the WP:EVENT guideline, which does warn per WP:RAPID, Deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to delete, so I have struck my !vote. Beccaynr (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable. --Bduke (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For now. If the case turns out to be an unexplained disappearance then it will be sufficiently notable to merit an article. If and when Nicola's body is found in the river then it simply becomes a misadventure which although tragic for her family is not of wider interest. The article should then be deleted. This repeats the point that David notMD makes above. Izzy (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Those who want to delete are annoying me. Stop being so opinionated! It's not as if we're using paper to publish these Wikipedia articles. It might not meet your values, but for other people it does. New Thought (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A case that has dominated the British media and social media for a week so far. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely agree. In addition the widespread use of social media, especially given her facebook page is open, has resulted in thousands of comments. This is a clear example of the public voicing opinion and theories about an ongoing case in a significant way. 83.100.179.3 (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm in agreement with the above - If it turns out she had fell in to the river then per WP:1E this should be deleted however as of writing this it's still being treated as an unexplained disappearance and so if nothing does come to light then the article should stay,
(Also my sincere condolences to anyone related reading this however this is how Wikipedia works - normal everyday accidents = non notable = deletion, Unexplained disappearances is obviously not seen as an every day thing and given the fact this has been in the news for the past week or so it would mean there's some notability here). –Davey2010Talk 14:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I do not feel the this article yet satisfies WP:GNG, but I agree with Izzy that since it is now there we should wait to see if it is sufficiently notable in due course. If it turns out to be an accidental drowning then the extensive coverage, which reflects present (at the time of writing) ambiguity about what happened, does not of itself confer notability. It should then be revisited through the AfD process. Peter Faulding's claim that this case is unusual could, at this point, simply reflect the frustration of someone in the public eye having not yet achieved the task they've set themselves; it doesn't mean the disappearance will necessary turn out to have actually been unusual in any way. The primary weakness of this article is the very fact that it has been written as a contemporary news article and so too many key variables remain unknown. Emmentalist (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nicola Bulley – latest: Dog walker ‘could be out to sea by now’ as friends hit out at grief tourists (Independent, Feb. 8, 2023), "Peter Faulding of Specialist Group International told The Times that the distance and river’s course meant the 45-year-old’s body could have reached the sea by now, as Lancashire Police said: “Clearly as time goes on, the open sea becomes much more of a possibility.” [...] A family friend of Nicola Bulley has said speculation about her disappearance was hard for the family to bear..."; Vile speculation hurtful to Nicola Bulley's family, friend says (BBC News). Based on the coverage overall, it also seems important to consider WP:BLP policy, e.g. it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This is a tragic case, but most newsworthy events are not included in this encyclopedia, for a variety of policy-based reasons. Beccaynr (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Although any number of people go missing each year, very few vanish completely without trace, and very few generate the media attention and public interest of this case. It is also unusual for the police to be so certain about the fate of a missing person who has vanished without trace so early after their disappearance. This is Paul (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly notable, been dominating British media for nearly two weeks straight. Agree with previous comments that if she just fell in the river, then delete, but as it is, at present, a completely unexplained disappearance it is noteworth enough to stay. ollyhinge11 (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : It is very clear that her disappearance is notable. BBC News covered her multiple times, as seen in here, here, and here. If her disappearance is not notable, BBC wouldn't provide in-depth coverage about her three times. Furthermore, her case has appeared in New Zealand, United States, Ireland, Spain, Indonesia and Singapore news. In my opinion, it is not a WP:1E case. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 17:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not a WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E situation, as this is not a biography. Appeals to those standards as reasons for deletion are completely erroneous, and have no basis in WP:DEL-REASON#8 (deletion for failure to meet the relevant notability guideline). Instead, this should be evaluated under WP:NEVENT. And, when looking through that lens, we have WP:INDEPTH coverage from a WP:DIVERSE group of sources that demonstrate coverage beyond a single, short news cycle. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it's nigh impossible to make a call on WP:LASTING less than a fortnight after the disappearance occurred, but the fact that we can't make a call on it does not provide an affirmative argument to delete the article at this time. Meanwhile, WP:GEOSCOPE is satisfied inasmuch as this appears to have become an event of national importance in the United Kingdom, thereby making the event attain significant impact over a wide region. On balance, this appears to pass WP:NEVENT#2, and the article should be presumed notable. As no arguments for deletion aside from dubious claims that this lacks notability have been made, this article should be kept at this time. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Huge story being covered by multiple main stream news media sites. And with new information coming to light this doesn’t seem like a case of someone just falling into a river. RossButsy (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, covered by many British media. Alex-h (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, widely covered by British media so far, especially the more major companies such as Sky and the BBC. Why even bother deleting it when it's been widely covered? e (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this missing person case may well be similar to how Libby Squire went missing though likely different cause of how Nicola went missing and more new vital information could develop during this discussion. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm with those who believe more time should be given to see how the case develops. It almost reminds me of the unusual level of initial coverage & public interest seen in the disapearence of Sarah Everard. Most missing persons cases sadly get very little cverage, this case has sustained coverage in reliable, quality sources.--DSQ (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nicola Bulley is not a significant figure so there's no reason why a page should be dedicated to this investigation. Grandtubetrains (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:1E as above and WP:NOTNEWS, while this has attracted significant news coverage hundreds of thousands of people go missing each year. 208.127.199.125 (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now I think we need to await the outcome. Similar articles exist such as this one Disappearance of Claudia Lawrence --Vince (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia has scores of disappearance articles (List of people who disappeared mysteriously: 1990–present) so this is not unusual. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - Keep for now, and if it comes to be anything bigger, keep permanently. Right now, we don't know the long-term significance. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is one event (WP:1E) about a non-notable person (WP:GNG) who is currently missing (WP:NOTNEWS). Thousands of people go missing each year in England. It's not notable. I hope all missing people are found alive and well, I just don't think that they warrant a Wikipedia article. This is an encyclopedia. 143.159.1.148 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, partly per @Red-tailed hawk. For two weeks now, this case has been the subject of exceptionally wide and deep news coverage throughout the UK and even in Ireland: see e.g. the streams of reports in The Irish Times, on RTÉ News, in The Irish Examiner, and in The Irish Independent.
The intense reporting has not just been in tabloids. The reputable news media (BBC, broadsheet newspapers etc) have also covered the story repeatedly and in depth.
As others have noted, a significant number of people go missing every year, and most disappearances get little or no media coverage. This is one of the cases which does get a lot of coverage, and while it's easy to be cynical about the type of case which fills headlines (a media frenzy is much more likely if, as in this case, the missing person is blonde, female, white, middle class), it is not for Wiki editors to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by deciding that the focus on this other particular case is undeserved. Whatever the strength of those observations of missing white woman syndrome, Wikipedia is a tertiary publication which reports the world as reliable sources see it per WP:WEIGHT, not as Wikipedia editors might like to see it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage ResonantDistortion 07:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reliable sources on the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with SunDawn on this one. I also agree with all of those that state that this should be based on event notability rather than biographical. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per significant coverage. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly has enough WP:SIGCOV by reliable independent sources to meet WP:GNG as well as notability guidelines for other topics such as WP:NEVENT. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Has plenty of coverage that warrants a keep. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:16, 13 February 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/Disappearance_of_Nicola_Bulley&oldid=1142188559"