Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Spain

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SpacedFarmer (talk | contribs) at 17:21, 26 July 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimoa.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Spain. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Spain|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Spain. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for Spain related AfDs


Spain

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 redirect‎ to Fernando Alonso. Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kimoa

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

Nominated as WP:SIGCOV are virtually non-existent bar store pages, thus failing WP:NCORP. Sources consists of WP:PRIMARY (website and social media sites). Other third party sources center itself on Signor Alonso. WP:ATD will be a redirect into Fernando Alonso. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 2 August 2024 (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.
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. Since the deep dive by Aviationwikiflight, consensus appears to be to keep the article. Malinaccier (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EasyJet Flight 6074

EasyJet Flight 6074 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable incident and WP:NOTNEWS BasketballDog21 (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No deaths or anything to make it very notable. It should be redirected to List of aircraft accidents and incidents by number of ground fatalities. Wheatley2 (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nothing inherently notable about the incident per WP:EVENTCRIT, and no sign of changes to procedures or other WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that the article on EasyJet Flight 6074 is not important and notable enough. The event's details are not well-documented by reliable sources. Yakov-kobi (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. There is no signs of notability for this incident nor deaths caused. There are thousands of similar plane incidents like this and not all of them will be given their standalone article. Galaxybeing (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: with not a single wounded person, this is very far from having the lasting consequences for WP:NEVENT. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Keep (with the possibility of draftification to improve the state of the article) – A lack of casualties does not necessarily imply non-notability. A major electrical failure leading to a near-miss with the possibility of being intercepted by fighter jets is not run-of-the-mill.
  • This incident led to multiple recommendations being issued, as well as (an) airworthiness directive(s), several being implemented which does satisfy WP:LASTING. Multiple systems were modified by Airbus as a result of this incident and several changes were also made:
  • Easyjet Flight 6074 (G-EZAC) was also used as a case study across multiple studies years after the incident which does demonstrate the event's notability:
  • The incident was listed in EASA's list of recurrent defects:
  • I would be inclined to express a keep opinion if, among other things, this incident was used as a case study on an ongoing basis, but I couldn't find anything in the first two English-language examples that you cited other than the references section. Can you point me to some specific page numbers in any of those references (even non-English) to show how this was used to show lasting impact on the aviation industry? The PDFs are more than a hundred pages long each, and I searched for the airliner name and the registration of the aircraft, but couldn't find what you were referring to. The current version of the article suggests that a scary technical problem occurred, many bad things could have happened, but the flight eventually landed safely. I'm not yet seeing the lasting notability that can be added to the article, or presumed notability associated with a hull loss or crash with injuries or fatalities. RecycledPixels (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I failed to precise this but the incident, in most the papers, do not directly mention the incident but instead use the incident as a source, reference, among many others. If you search for the registration, you should normally be able to find mentions of the incident in the sources section. Per the order of pdf files given above, the specific page numbers are: p.337; p.222; p.26; p.172; p.184; p.20; p.10. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aviationwikiflight, you've shown that the incident has been widely studied, and that it led to procedural and design changes. The article could of course, if kept, be updated accordingly. But does it make the flight notable enough to justify a standalone article rather than just adding a sentence or two to the existing mention on List of accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family? I'm not convinced yet... Rosbif73 (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominator has been blocked for being a disreputable sock. Borgenland (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2024 (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.
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. (non-admin closure) KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triáns

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

This page clearly does not satisfy WP:NGEO Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 28 July 2024 (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.
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. This widely participated AfD suffered from obvious canvassing, as witnessed by the many inexperienced WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-based votes. But even after discarding all those, we're still left with many P&G-based views on both sides.

Some correctly pointed out that WP:NOTNEWS doesn't prohibit us from covering events, if notability, as measured by SIGCOV, is well beyond the routine. Others correctly noted that the mere weeks elapsed since the event prevents any coverage from meeting the endurance test.

After two weeks and with over 40 participants, consensus failed to materialize, and is unlikely to appear with another relist or two. Feel free to renominate in three months, when with the benefit of hindsight, we'll get a better idea about the enduring impact of this event. Owen× ☎ 22:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jay Slater

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

This seems like a prime example of NOTNEWS to me; there is no indication that this is an event that rises to encyclopedic notability, and the history is replete with the removal of excessive tabloid-style detail and suggestion. Pinging the three editors that weighed in at WP:BLPN: notwally, Bon courage, DeCausa. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was a huge case that went on national news every day until the case was resolved. Nicola Bulley, Madeline Mcann articles are still up. Makes zero sense to delete this in my opinion. R.I.P Jay Slater. Jattlife121 (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although "huge" and appearing "every day" in the news (at least in reliable sources) may be questionable hyperbole there's no denying it was a big news story in the UK. But it would be interesting to see the arguments of keep voters! as to how WP:RECENT media coverage equates to needing a WP:NOTNEWS encyclopaedia article. An encyclopedia and a colection of news clippings are not the same thing. The keepers don't seem to address that: specifically could someone talk through the 10 year test thought experiment in relation to this article. DeCausa (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think one thing is that the story has (unfortunately) moved outside of news coverage and into meme culture and maybe even urban mythology. I'm not inclined to go looking for links though because they're all in pretty bad taste. I doubt this story will go away quickly - multiple stories are still being published in the last 24 hours. As it says in WP:RAPID, we shouldn't rush to create articles but also shouldn't rush to delete them. I would just advise a pause on this one. Orange sticker (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have similar articles with extensive news coverage on deaths from exposure/misadventure/wilderness etc. including
Darrelljon (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are those similar though? All of them seem to be unsolved or were unsolved for a long period of time with sources from different decades, and/or had investigations into the police handling the cases. Does this particular article subject have any remarkable aspect about it as a case other than temporary news coverage? – notwally (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only Jay Slater made video calls whilst lost and disappeared with smartphone geographic coordinates available from early on. Unlike the others he was not camping/hiking/driving at night. The others were not subject to the social media reaction from the start. Darrelljon (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the incident has had far too extensive media coverage to warrant a deletion Kala7992 (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the sourcing in light of WP:NEVENT may help to bring about a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: "Young man falls from cliff" is not notable for our purposes. This doesn't appear to be a criminal event, so NOTNEWS applies here. Sad that he's passed, but this also appears to be a memorial to the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To be fair, I don't think the Nicola Bulley article is notable now that I look at it, but it's gone to AfD twice, so I won't bother nominating it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The disappearance and death of Jay slater was and currently is a large story with significant publicity and might I point out the number of similar articles eg: Death of Nicola Bulley Anonymous569 (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's in the public interest to keep this wiki up.

It's not a secret, it's been all over the news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.37.42 (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the convincing case made by Edl-irishboy. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve already had my vote but I just have to echo the votes after mine of GiantSnowman and Black Kite. The sheer amount of coverage of this received in pretty much every single UK media source should nearly guarantee it as notable. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 23:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - yes NOTNEWS applies, but this was more than this in the UK. It was everywhere for a number of days. GiantSnowman 20:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Normally I'd suggest deleting most of these NOTNEWS types of articles, but this was so ludicrously widely covered both in RS and on social media because of the multiple unusual circumstances surrounding the case. If you were in the UK you couldn't escape it for a month. Yes, we have lots of crappy "Death of ..." articles but this one is more notable than the vast majority of those. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS and NEVENT. Keep in mind we are to summarize the news for the long term view and document to a day by day level. The coverage of this death pointed out by others above once the cause was known are routine aspects related to this type of story, and since neither the person normal actual death had any significant notability or long term impacts, it clearly fails our guidelines to keep. This is a strong case that that want to write on such news topics like this to start at Wikinews, and then if the story turns notable in the long term (not just primary sourcing as here) then it could be moved to en.wiki. Most of the keep arguments avoid are not starters per ATA. Masem (t) 21:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Routine accidental death of a non-notable person. Cullen328 (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are numerous articles on WP covering the accidental death of a non-notable person. Specifically, the Death of Nicola Bulley story. She was a non-notable person who had an accidental death - and her case is only being reported recently again due to the Jay Slater story as has been reported widely. Though she has gone through AfD twice, the article remains. It is absurd to propose deleting this article while allowing a plethora of similar articles to exist. It is inconsistent and undermines neutrality. Said articles out there include:
  • The Death of Esther Dingley article is believed to be an accidental fall as is Jay Slater's, and it hasn't gone to AfD.
  • Disappearance of Cynthia Bah-Traore who's page is just a simple missing person's case, with no widespread global attention, and her article remains. It's also an example of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROMOTION,
  • Death of Haider who also suffered an accidental fall with no widespread media attention or further information, another example of NOTNEWS.
  • and Death of Lauren Cho. Further researching can show further similar articles. To single out the Jay Slater article for deletion is an erratic action in my opinion. Thank you. Edl-irishboy (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Multi-AFDs do not have a lot of support unless the articles are extremely similar to each other, often created and only edited by the same editor. While these all fit the same theme of "disappearance and unfortunately accidental death of a non-notable person" the circustances around the stories as well as how they were created are are to dissimilar to run them all at the same time. — Masem (t) 00:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a general comment: WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are pretty much never effective ways to try to argue that a particular article should be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is essential to recognise Wikipedia's purpose 'to benefit readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge'. This adheres to Wiki's guidelines by providing the primary criterion for inclusion of verifiability and notability which have been met. The overarching theme of 'notable accidental deaths and disappearances' provides a cohesive context for inclusion. While WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not valid reasons for retention, they highlight wiki's essential aspect of consistency. If numerous articles on similar topics exist and are maintained on here, it sets a precedent for what the community considers notable. This article meets the same criteria that justified the inclusion of similar cases as I have provided already. Edl-irishboy (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure I agree with your If numerous articles on similar topics exist and are maintained on here, it sets a precedent for what the community considers notable. statement about other articles exising estblishing some kind of precedent that this article should also exist. There over six million Wikipedia articles and more keep being added everything. So, the fact that something exists, even if it has existed for a WP:LONGTIME, doesn't necessarily mean it should exist. I'm not saying those other articles need to be deleted; only that it's better to focus on why this article should be kept instead of trying to establish some kind of WP:SYN-ish/WP:OR-ish type (in my opinion) of correspondance between it and other articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • As have emphasised many times by myself and others, there has been significant media attention and demonstrated interest in the Wiki community to Jay's disappearance and subsequent death, indicating its impact and public interest. The coverage by major news outlets highlights its relevance and importance. His case, given its circumstances and the attention it received, is a part of contemporary history in which Wiki serves as a repository of. I reiterate while the existence of other articles doesn't automatically justify retention, it is worth noting that similar cases have been documented here, indicating a community consensus on the notability of such events. Furthermore, his case provides educational value by offering the effects of social media that it had impacted on this case, as was the case of Nicola Bulley. The article can be expanded to include further details, the broader social implications of his death, responses from various community leaders and any subsequent changes in policies or public awareness campaigns. Edl-irishboy (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • "indicating its impact and public interest"... in the short term. There's nothing to indicate long term notability per NEVENT, nor the GNG (It's why we avoid articles on short term bursts of news coverage). Perhaps this also applies to the other articles given but those should be considered case by case.
              The other way to view this is if you were just starting to look at these events, but ten years from now without the awareness of being in the midst of the media coverage. Based on what we know, it's unlikely that it would make sense to write such an article that has no lasting impact. That's where we need editors to keep NOTNEWS in mind — Masem (t) 22:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • 'There's nothing to indicate long term notability'..notability can sometimes emerge over time. Many historical events initially appeared to have fleeting impact but gained importance as societal context evolved. Future developments and new perspectives could bring a greater understanding of its impact. We shouldn't consider how events are viewed 'ten years from now' without current media awareness. The article represents a snapshot of public interest and societal issues of social media for example relevant today. This flawed perspective is precisely why preserving such articles is important, acknowledging that significance can develop over time, it helps maintain a comprehensive historical record. Historical examples such as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand demonstrate how events initially perceived as minor can later gain immense significance. Edl-irishboy (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's more the reverse, the current flawed perspective is this need to rush to create articles on events that have a short term surge of coverage without waiting for the long term impact to reveal itself. That's why we have had to write NEVENT to try to get editors to get back to writing encyclopic articles aligned with NOTNEWS and not simply regurgitating every detail revealed by the news to give excessive weight on first party sourcing. This latter approach is far better at Wikinews, and if the event does show itself notable, then we can bring it back into en.wiki. — Masem (t) 22:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Jay Slater’s passing is not merely a transient news event. The community's response reflect lasting importance. Delaying the article's inclusion under the assumption that it can be resurrected later risks losing valuable context and immediate responses. It is not the reverse of good practice to maintain the article on here at this time. Suggesting that the article should be deferred to Wikinews for immediate coverage before being evaluated later fails to recognise that wiki is precisely the right platform for documenting significant events. This fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia's purpose. His death has had a considerable impact which is reflected in the coverage. It is not a matter of reversing proper procedure but about ensuring that significant events are documented comprehensively and timely on here. The notion that his article should be removed and only considered if it proves its notability over time does a disservice to wiki's role in preserving and reflecting on significant life events as they happen. The immediate reactions, governmental and professional acknowledgments such as here and here, as well as personal tributes are part of a larger narrative that wiki is well-positioned to document. Slater's article, supported by diverse sources, reflects the criteria for notability and the purpose of wiki to capture and document such events in real time. I am surprised only Jay Slater's article is being proposed for deletion and not others I have mentioned. Concluding, removing the article based on the premise that it might not be notable enough for wiki later undermines the value of preserving immediate and contextual information. Edl-irishboy (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                I'm sorry, but comparing the death of Jay Slater to the death of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is completely absurd. There are many similar solved missing persons cases that have become the subject of news coverage, and they inevitably see a spike of coverage at the time before fading into obscurity. The ones that tend to see enduring coverage are ones where the body is unfound or the reason for their death remains mysterious, neither of which is true in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the parts about social media to social media or some other article that talks about the effects of social media on society. This is the analytical and encyclopedic part of the article. The tragic death itself isn't encyclopedic and could be summed up in just a few sentences for background. As many people have said, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, and we shouldn't create articles as a memorial. We really do have to start following policy on this issue, or else Wikipedia is going to fill up tabloid stories as news sites get more desperate for clicks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. To the extent there is any encyclopedic value (as opposed to news interest) in this article it's part of a broader theme on social media and society. That's best handled by incorporation into an article such as social media. As a standalone that doesn't work. DeCausa (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just going to add that if the article ends up being merged or redirected, then the non-free use of the main infobox image would need to be re assessed because the justification for non-free use would no longer be primary identification of the subject in main infobox of a stand-alone article about the subject. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NOTNEWS with much of the coverage being sensationalist and not indicative of the topic being likely to meet WP:LASTING. JavaHurricane 17:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • While wiki is not a newspaper, it does not mean that content on here is divorced from the standards of significant and sustained coverage. His death, while perhaps not an ongoing headline, has had a significant impact in its own right. The circumstances surrounding the death contributed to broader discussions on important issues such as social media and the conspiracy theories as with the case of Nicola Bulley. The long-term relevance of Jay's case cannot be discounted. Issues related to his death may evolve and become more significant over time. The claim that the coverage of his case is sensationalist does not align with the credibility of the sources reporting on the case. Major news outlets such as the BBC, Sky News, The Guardian, and The New York Times have provided day to day coverage. These are well-respected organisations known for their journalistic standards and rigorous reporting. Furthermore, I know shouldnt discuss other similar articles, but the case of Nicola Bulley, sensationalist tabloid newspaper articles have been sourced, and no one has said a word? <> <> Edl-irishboy (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sustained coverage is usually measured far beyond one month, given we write for a long term view. — Masem (t) 22:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Notability does not rely solely on the duration of coverage but rather on the depth and significance of the coverage too. The value of documenting an event is not merely about waiting for a lengthy period of coverage. The emphasis should be on the quality of the coverage rather than its duration. Edl-irishboy (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        No, we specifically say that a burst of coverage is not an indicator of notability. See WP:NSUSTAINED, and the essence of WP:NEVENT. We're not a newspaper and just because an event may get a large amount of news covers from quality sources still doesn't make the topic necessarily appropriate for a stand alone article if all that coverage is only in the short term. Masem (t) 01:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        From the WP:NSUSTAINED you have noted, it states 'a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it".' The case of Jay Slater has indeed garnered significant attention beyond the immediate burst of news coverage. The coverage from notable, reliable sources indicates a sustained interest and recognition of the article's significance on a wider scale. It has received attention not just within the United Kingdom but also internationally. The coverage of Jay Slater's death is not merely superficial but has involved detailed reporting, analysis, and commentary. While Wiki is not a newspaper which I've said countless times in my arguments, the case of Jay Slater went beyond the criteria of ephemeral media attention. I reiterate that I cannot stress enough why on earth this article would be proposed for deletion when there are multiple articles about accidental deaths that have been retained with no trouble; this proposal clearly goes against Wikipedia's policies and purpose and wholly undermines neutrality on here. Moreover, it is deeply unfair to the dedicated editors who have invested their time and effort in creating and refining these articles in good faith. Edl-irishboy (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing but primary sources can exist; this happened just a month ago, so everything that has been written about the incident is in the context of the event. Wait until we have secondary sources — books, academic journals, retrospective journalism, etc., that look at the sources from the time of the event — rather than relying on primary sources, those written around the time of the event. Nyttend (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is nonsensical. Secondary sources can "involve generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information". There are clear secondary sources in this article, as evidenced by the analysis and opinion pieces references provided, as seen here, here and here. The article contains a mixture of primary and secondary sources alike, so it is wholly absurd to comment about the non-existence of secondary sources in the article. Edl-irishboy (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edl-irishboy, at a certain point, you are WP:BLUDGEONING the AfD. – notwally (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ResonantDistortion 11:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Absolutely enormous coverage in the UK media moves this well above the WP:NOTNEWS standard. Truly laughable nomination. No more NOTNEWS than the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Actually had a hell of a lot more coverage in the UK media than that minor incident. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a laughable nomination to be honest. The significant coverage, not least in the UK, but globally, clearly goes above the WP:NOTNEWS standard. RIP Jay. Edl-irishboy (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have reviewed the above discussion and checked several sources. Yes, the subject garnered a huge amount of media and news coverage, and yes - other stuff may exist. However my !vote to keep is based upon the steady emergence of WP:RS articles which are more secondary in nature - commenting and analyzing on not just the incident but also the surrounding events such as the sleuthing and trolling and nature of "high-profile missing person's cases". Examples of which, and some have been linked previously, include: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. As such, in my view, I consider to presume that GNG is met. ResonantDistortion 15:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment A new article 1 suggests interest will drop off, at least in terms of tabloid news. However in doing so, is a secondary source analysing and comparing the case with the Disappearance of Damien Nettles and Jack O'Sullivan (from this year) and the article itself generates more sustained coverage instead of it's claim otherwise. Darrelljon (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This falls squarely within the "brief bursts of news coverage" noted at SUSTAINED. NEVENT considers "accidents" and "deaths" to be routine by default and thus even when they are widely reported at the time [they] are usually not notable. There is no indication that this will have the requisite additional enduring significance to overcome this guidance. Furthermore, Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. All we have right now is primary, contemporaneous reporting, which is against both our NOTNEWS and PRIMARY policies. And the existence of shitty memes (or whatever) made by shitty internet people definitely does not factor into whether the topic is of permanent, encyclopedic historical significance. JoelleJay (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete textbook NOTNEWS; these sorts of accidents are specifically called out as an example of normally routine coverage. Sensational coverage during a search doesn't equal enduring importance. Coverage brought up above that takes a wider analytical view doesn't suggest the need of a standalone page. We're not a crystal ball; if this proves some atypical level of enduring discussion, recreate the article then. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Significant and sustained coverage in multiple reliable sources for a period of weeks. Over 75 references are currently in the article from a range of sources. Perhaps for one or two editors (I do assume good faith) there might be a touch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To dismiss the article as "sensationalism" seems to be a point of view which doesn't entirely correspond with the wide variety of reliable sources such as BBC News, Sky News and broadsheet newspapers such as The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph and The Times of India. Unless the BBC and broadsheet newspapers are also guilty of sensationalism? Perhaps they are sometimes. But in my view the article meets the requirements of notablity. Over the last 12 days the number of daily page views for the article has ranged from 920 to 8,794. On average, a few thousand daily. If there are some people who don't like the topic or think it's sensationalism then nobody is forcing them to read the article. But thousands of Wikipedia readers are sufficiently interested enough to click on the article and in my view it meets WP:GNG. I agree with Edl-irishboy that the sustained coverage goes above the WP:NOTNEWS standard. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, all news outlets are guilty of sensationalism, which is why news articles are near the bottom in terms of reliability when it comes to the wide range of potential sources available. I doubt there will ever be any scholarly articles about this case. – notwally (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia articles do not always require sources from scholarly articles. Reliable news outlets are essential for documenting events, especially those with significant public interest and extensive coverage. Slater's case has been reported widely worldwide, with both primary and secondary sources from BBC, Sky News, etc providing detailed and verifiable information. While scholarly articles are valuable, they are not always available for every topic, especially recent cases. In such instances, well-documented news reports are not only appropriate but necessary for providing a comprehensive and factual account. Edl-irishboy (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The media coverage for the search clearly goes above and beyond the normal media coverage. Swordman97 talk to me 05:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS and unlikely to have any real sustained coverage. Out of scope for the project. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Tabloid sensationalism. Polyamorph (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You're of course fully entitled to express your view, but currently there are 79 references in the article and the vast majority of the references are reliable secondary sources from broadsheet newspapers and national news outlets such as BBC News rather than from tabloids. The article has suffered from some vandalism and disruptive editing. Page protection was provided for the article earlier this month and if there is continued vandalism and disruptive editing then further page protection may be required. There has been sustained news coverage in reliable sources for over a month which in my view goes above the WP:NOTNEWS standard. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might I back Kind Tennis Fan that there has been sustained news coverage in sources for well over a month, with another international source here published 21st July. Edl-irishboy (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Precisely. The BBC and British broadsheet newspapers, all of which featured massive and sustained coverage, do not generally indulge in "tabloid sensationalism". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The BBC engages in far more tabloid sensationalism than it should, especially on the website. Agree with the comment below by Masem re: MWWS. Polyamorph (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        However, this also feels like a type of Missing white woman syndrome, which media of all types including normally high quality sources can get caught up in. How many people go missing every day? Why did this single case get the focus? Masem (t) 12:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm guessing because it's unusual for people from western countries to go missing while on holiday abroad, because a lot of British people go on holiday to the Canaries so it's "close to home", and because it took so long to find his body. Missing white woman syndrome: The syndrome also encompasses disproportionate media attention to females who are young, attractive, white, and upper middle class. Well, he was indeed young and white, but none of the others are relevant, so I think this is being misapplied! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Aa I said, a "type of", not explicitly MWWS for obvious reasons in this case. Something in the story drew the attention of British media to this story in contrast to any other missing persons story, and we should be wary of feeding this type of media bias Masem (t) 14:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        (edit conflict) In Europe, 250,000 children go missing every year. Maybe the Missing White woman syndrome isn't exactly the analogy - but there's a related principle. DeCausa (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Clearly a completely different situation. The fact is, his disappearance was massively covered in the media. Headline news. For days on end. As I pointed out above, actually far more so than the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, which was headline news only for a day or two. And for us not to have an article on a case that was so heavily covered would be simply laughable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe comparing Jay Slater's case to missing white woman syndrome fundamentally misrepresents the nuances of media coverage and public interest in this specific case. The assertion that the coverage of this particular case is purely an instance of MWWS fails to consider several critical factors that justify its coverage and inclusion on here. While it's undeniable that many people go missing everyday, the focus on this specific case is not solely due to media sensationalism or bias. This case has garnered significant attention worldwide. I am aware I have already compared this to that of Nicola Bulley, but I just cannot emphasise enough why this discussion is still in place. Both cases have involved substantial search efforts, community involvement and ongoing investigations that contribute to their worthiness on Wikipedia. Edl-irishboy (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Let's keep in mind that the bulk (more than 90%) of the coverage of this is UK based (after discontinuing the usual tabloids) I did spot a couple NYTimes and other US sources but nowhere near the volume of UK coverage, so calling this having "worldwide" attention is just not true. Not that we necessarily require worldwide coverage for notability, but calling it that is over emphasizing the importance of the story. Masem (t) 21:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Obviously it is true that the bulk of the coverage of this story originates from the UK, given he was from the UK, but there was still international attention, such as The New York Times, CNN, Reuters and other news outlets in Australia, Singapore and various European countries have reported on the story, further demonstrating its international relevance. The story has been widely discussed on social media platforms, which are inherently global, attracting commentary and sharing from users around the world. The international coverage, albeit not as voluminous as in the UK, still shows that the story is of interest and importance beyond its country of relevance. Edl-irishboy (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        That's the situation common around papers that consider themselves international papers as well as wire services, there will cover foreign news. The only non UK, non "wire" like article I saw in ten pages of Google News hits was from the NYTimes going a bit more to the social media parts of this story ( the one already in the article). In contrast to the more recent UK election where numerous US papers had their own analysis of how that election would impact and influence the US. That's why it's disingenuous to treat this disappearance as "international" or "worldwide" coverage because to me this is just routine coverage from internation papers and wire services. Masem (t) 21:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The presence of articles from multiple international sources, including respected newspapers like the NY Times and wire services such as Reuters, indicates that the story has captured the interest of global media. Even if these are not unique analyses, the variety of sources contributes to a broader international awareness. The comparison with the recent UK election highlights a different type of coverage. National elections often attract intense analysis from both domestic and international media due to their immediate implications for global politics and economics. In contrast, a disappearance story, even with substantial coverage, might not receive the same depth of analysis but still warrants international attention due to its nature and the interest it generates. Edl-irishboy (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is fleshed out pretty extensively with over 80 sources, so it seems notable enough to me. CloversMallRat (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This has been a huge story for weeks. Now that its come to a conclusion, that doesn't make it less notable. Also the article has been much improved over time with a now large number of sources. - Moondragon21 (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2024 (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.


Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Spain&oldid=1236812903"