Points of interest related to Spain on Wikipedia: Outline –  History –  Portal –  Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
( talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Spain/archive

• See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain

Scan for Spain related AfDs Scan for Spain related Prods Scan for Spain related TfDs

Kimoa (  | 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. 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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Spain. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 17:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

EasyJet Flight 6074 (  | 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) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. BasketballDog21 ( talk) 01:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• delete, no major injuries in comparison with 2001 Japan Airlines mid-air incident, its the same case as Air Europa flight 045, and no aircraft damage, so cannot be in Wikipedia since it's not notable. Protoeus ( talk) 04:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  WP:OTHERSTUFF is not exactly a convincing argument since every article has to stand on its own merit. The 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion does not have any injuries, Air Canada Flight 759 doesn’t have any injuries and the list goes on. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 14:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, France, Spain, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 22 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:

• Annuel safety recommendations review annexes^: 3–4
• Annual Safety Recommendations review^: 88–91;
• G-EZAC Safety Recommendation Document;
  

• 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:

• University of York – Failure Logic Modelling: A Pragmatic Approach –31 March 2010–
• Vanderbilt University Graduate School – Model-Based Detection in Cyber-Physical Systems –25 October 2011–
• Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications – 航空機局の検査制度について (In Japanese) –27 November 2011–
• Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications – 航空機に搭載する無線局の検査の在り方に関する検討会 報告（案 (In Japanese) –10 August 2012–
• Hamburg University of Technology – Eine Methode zur optimalen Redundanzallokation im Vorentwurf fehlertoleranter Flugzeugsysteme (In German) –July 2013–
• University of Strathclyde – Impact of key design constraints on fault management strategies for distributed electrical propulsion aircraft –10 July 2017–
• University of Strathclyde – Establishing viable fault management strategies for distributed electrical propulsion aircraft –3 September 2017–

• The incident was listed in EASA's list of recurrent defects:

• EASA Community Network | Recurrent defects

• The incident was also analysed by the Flight Safety Foundation:

• AeroSafety World September 2009^: 16–21

• Whilst not having significant coverage in news sources, the incident was widely used as a case study for multiple studies, led to numerous recommendations being issued along with service bulletins, and led to modifications being implemented by Airbus. " Airbus faces demands for A320 series electrical systems improvement following EasyJet report" I don't see how this event would qualify as failing WP:NOTNEWS since primary sources are practically non-existent and that this is not exactly a breaking-news story (I've been able to find a singular news report on this event, The Daily Mail but it's not exactly a source that we would consider reliable). Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 19:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• I've been able to find a news report on the incident from the Telegraph, published the day after the release of the final report. [1] Archived version Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 11:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Here's another BBC news report on the incident – [2] and a short news report by The Mirror, [3] plus a short mention talking about another incident. [4], and another news report. [5] Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 13:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• 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

• Keep per User:Aviationwikiflight due to (1) changes in procedures and (2) demonstrated use as a case study. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 22:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep per User:Rlandmann= Changes in procedures. A serious near miss and major electrical failure. Hacked ( Talk| Contribs) 14:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Triáns (  | 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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity ( talk) ( contribs) 13:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete — regarding WP:NGEO, although WP:NPLACE does say that populated areas are presumed to be notable, I can find essentially nothing in reliable sources covering, or even really trivially mentioning, Triáns. One solitary mention in a document from 1916. Clearly does not meet WP:GNG. GhostOfNoMeme 22:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Clearly a recognised settlement, as any look at a map will determine, so satisfies WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Can you explain how it satisfies WP:GEOLAND?

  Note under sources it states: "A feature cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG or any SNG, if the only significant coverage of the feature is in maps." GhostOfNoMeme 00:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable... Nothing ambiguous there. It is a longstanding consensus on Wikipedia that recognised settlements are notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yes, it is presumed to be notable — but as I quoted above, significant coverage cannot solely be maps. Right? For Triáns, there is no WP:SIGCOV outside of maps. Am I misunderstanding the policy? The essay WP:NOTGAZETTEER seems relevant. GhostOfNoMeme 08:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yes, that is an essay. And that's all it is. It is a fact that we have generally given verified settlements the benefit of the doubt at AfD. Have you actually read what I wrote below? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• delete without prejudice to recreation with enough information and sourcing to allow verification. There's no way to tell that it exists and is a settlement with what we have, and it's not AfD's job to write the article. Mangoe ( talk) 12:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Proof it exists and is a recognised settlement. Plus the former parish school is listed as being on its territory. Plus an Iron Age fort. Here is its status as a settlement confirmed on the municipality website. Clear verification of its meeting WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete like nominator said doesn't meet WP:NGEO and this place isn't covered significantly anywhere 92.40.196.243 ( talk) 17:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Death of Jay Slater (  | 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

• Delete for the reason you've given: WP:NOTNEWS and WP:1E. There has been a decent amount of news coverage in local weeks but he's now been confirmed as having died via misadventure that's likely to drop off very quickly now and it's not even WP:VICTIM. Fragglet ( talk) 16:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Drmies and Fragglet. A classic news aggregator piece unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I fear that this is shouting in the wind - we have too many articles like this so I'll be very surprised if Delete succeeds. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exists but the multiple other articles of this standard lowers the subliminal threshold. DeCausa ( talk) 17:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Exactly my point, Wikipedia has too many articles like this. It is beyond absurd of this deletion proposal. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 22:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I sincerely hope that is not your point Edl-irishboy: otherwise your point would be "let's throw what's right overboard and just embrace crassness by unthinkingly marching into the new norm of the lowest common denominator simply because there's so much of it already." DeCausa ( talk) 22:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is just passing grief porn of no lasting encyclopedic worth. No knowledge to share here, no decent analytical sourcing and Wikipedia is (or should be) WP:NOTNEWS. Bon courage ( talk) 17:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  wrong wrong wrong 78.145.76.106 ( talk) 18:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Care to elaborate, Mr. 78? Or Mrs. 78? Oaktree b ( talk) 00:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment: isn't this article similar to that of Death of Nicola Bulley?... iirc, that was also nominated to be deleted?, but was kept... – 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 L1amw90  ( 🗣️ talk to me  •  ✍️ contribs) 20:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • User:L1amw90, there seems to be a lot more content in that article than in this one, particularly content pointing to a greater influence, for instance. Drmies ( talk) 21:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • That article contains a substantial amount of information about the police investigation and subsequent investigations into possible police misconduct during the case. Is there any indication that this situation has broader signficance beyond news coverage of a missing person who had accidentally died? – notwally ( talk) 03:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Agree with Drmies and Fragglet. What is the encyclopedic importance or enduring notability of this article subject? To document a flash of news coverage surrounding one person's death? Almost all of the article seems like trivial details. We already ignore WP:NOTNEWS too much when it comes to news reports on crimes, and I don't think it is wise to extend that to accidental deaths as well. – notwally ( talk) 21:35, 16 July 2024
• Keep and not just because I started the original article, Disappearance of Jay Slater, but because I agree with L1amw90. There are many articles similar to this one which are still on Wikipedia. CitationIsNeeded ( talk) 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • CitationIsNeeded, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Drmies ( talk) 01:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are many articles like this on Wikipedia such as, Death of Nicola Bulley which was going to be deleted however was kept even though its in the same boat as this article as not having "encyclopedic notability", also why delete the article just because the search is over? If thats the case then that means many other missing persons pages should be deleted aswell due to that reason, and I can agree with you that tabloid journalists have milked the story and most likely in 2 weeks will be posting articles along the lines of "Jay Slater's mother uses gofundme money on booze!", ok i sidetracked a bit TLDR: Keep because there are many other articles similar to this that went thru nomination for deletion but are still up. User:IPhoneRoots 11:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep an article, especially an accidental fatal fall. Clarityfiend ( talk) 13:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• I would lean towards Keep as the coverage of this disappearance, death and the public reaction to it has been extensive to the point where it now feels like its entered the cultural lexicon. If it turns out coverage is not WP:NSUSTAINED then it may be delete-worthy in the future but I expect it will be the type of case that gets referred back to and compared to a lot. Orange sticker ( talk) 13:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep the article is very similar to the Death of Nicola Bulley. And his death is trending all around social media. Azarctic ( talk) 15:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • That other article is substantially about the investigation into police misconduct. Is there anything similar for the article subject here that involves details beyond merely the accidental death of a person? I do not see anything in the article in its current state to suggest that is the case. – notwally ( talk) 15:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

    Yes, the Guardia Civil had to pretend they stopped searching to deter vloggers. Darrelljon ( talk) 09:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete Yup, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I've experienced both stories from a UK media perspective. At the end of the day, it's just a sad case of someone having an accident in the mountains and the difficulties of finding them therein. Rightfully a media story at the time, at least at this time, there's no long lasting impact or public story, or anything extraordinary about it. Negatives outweigh the positives. Delete. RIP Jay. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:50, 17 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

• Deaths of Kris Kremers and Lisanne Froon
• Yuba County Five
• Death Valley Germans
• Death of Azaria Chamberlain
• Dyatlov Pass incident

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

• Delete All the coverage is sensational. Though we can see some major newspaper contributing to the topic, I can’t see how it fulfils WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, subject fails WP:1E Vorann Gencov ( talk) 00:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment this is paywalled, but a new article about the reaction around this case came out this morning. I think the social media section could be expanded. https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2024/07/jay-slater-our-true-crime-poisoned-culture Orange sticker ( talk) 08:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Added it to the social media section, thanks for the suggestion. Bonus Person ( talk) 02:48, 22 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

• delete this case is nothing but news, and WP:sensationalism. Feels like gender reversed incident of missing white woman syndrome. Nothing different, or notable about this garden variety missing/death case. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Tentative keep. I'd !vote to delete were it not for the New Statesman article provided by Orange sticker, which indicates use as a WP:CASESTUDY. With that said, the keep rationales of Jattlife121, Darrelljon, CitationIsNeeded, IPhoneRoots, and Azarctic are probably subject to being invalidated, because the existence of articles about other disappearances is not relevant to whether this disappearance is notable. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 02:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep, quite similar in notability to Death of Nicola Bulley and a BBC News about the subject was posted today. Sahaib ( talk) 08:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep, as per Sahaib, it is wholly similar to the case of Nicola Bulley which was nominated for deletion twice for not having encyclopedic notability and a keep was resulted for both. Her death was an accidental drowning and Slater's was an accidental fall - both died in accidental circumstances. The rationale as per her deletion discussion was "An accidental death by drowning is a non event, not worthy of a WP article", but a Keep was resulted nonetheless. Rejecting WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:NOTNEWS as per rationale for this, Jay Slater's case dominated the British media and social media, in particular the spread of the conspiracy theories. Yes, WP is not a newspaper but the constant coverage, not least in Britain but across the world too, perspicuously provides for proof of notability and bestows readers with WP:LASTING impact. ABC, Reuters, CNN, NY Times, TVNZ, RTÉ. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY and this satisfies WP:GNG. Yes countless people go missing every year, but few disappear without trace and generate the media attention to worldwide extent. Most certainly reject that it is a WP:1E case. Though his body has been found and a court rules accidental fall, I wholly reject that this case is "likely to drop off very quickly" with sustained coverage still being reported here, here, here and here a week since his confirmed death. Edl-irishboy ( talk) 14:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Most of the cases raised by Darrelljon have had some kind of afterlife, an imprint on the culture. This is not true of this case. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 23:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep , as per all above. This is very similar to the case of Nicola Bulley, who coincidentally were both from the Lancashire area. I’m not sure why Nicola’s article is still up and Jay’s is proposed for deletion but Jay Slater’s case has gained media attention worldwide and is notable to be on Wikipedia in my opinion. There are so many missing person’s articles on here which are similar, so why delete this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23EE:1300:259E:2037:382A:EADD:9BD ( talk) 02:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This was a notable story in the UK. Wjfox2005 ( talk) 17:00, 22 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

• Keep I would suggest that this Wikipedia page / article should be retained as it provides a convenient source of all relevant information in one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguywhosaw ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep Yinka Williams ( talk) 23:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment: This user joined Wikipedia on 12 July. Geschichte ( talk) 06:23, 24 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. Giant Snowman 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
• 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. Java Hurricane 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. Resonant Dis_tortion 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. Resonant Dis_tortion 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

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain/Article alerts, a bot-maintained listing of a variety of changes affecting Spain related pages including deletion discussions