Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Spain

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

[edit]

EasyJet Flight 6074

[edit]
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)[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]

Triáns

[edit]
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]

Death of Jay Slater

[edit]
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 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
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]
  • 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]

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]


Others

[edit]

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=1236468499"