Talk:Death of Nicola Bulley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

AfD

Should this article be deleted? This is a non-notable person per GNG. Thousands of people go missing each year. Should each of them have a Wikipedia article? 143.159.1.148 (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You can put that view on the AfD article itself. doktorb _words^deeds 19:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of non notable missing people have Wikipedia pages, and Bulley has attracted nationwide media attetion 2A02:C7C:676A:8000:E92B:1B9:8C3F:AA8A (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I am against deletion. What would make this any different than any other missing persons article? It appears to be well-written. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It needs to be changed from a biography to an article about the investigation and what makes it noteworthy.

It also needs to be marked as documenting a current event. 2601:1C0:4500:6B10:AD98:E90C:EB8:3C78 (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Just so everyone here knows, the AfD discussion (which can be found here) has already been closed as keep, meaning the article won't be deleted. greyzxq ^talk 13:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The disappearance itself isn't notable; the media circus surrounding it is, however. 31.205.5.237 (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

IP 2a00:23c4:d68c:3101:d4c9:94c9:429e:1d20 has three times removed an External link and been reverted three times, and has been warned on Talk page. If this persists, will need Administrator intervention. David notMD (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Consider protecting this page

In light of today's news, I believe this page should be considered for protection (i.e. only logged in users can edit). The body found in the river wyre, will likely turn out to be that of Nicola Bulley and if/when this news breaks, this page will attract a lot of attention.

This event has already attracted unwanted and unpleasant attention, from conspiracy theorists, etc. I think this article should be protected, to help prevent such offensive content appearing here. Reduolf13 (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Spelling of first name

It is Nichola not Nicola some one please correct the ladies forename please 88.108.135.70 (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a WP:RS for this? MIDI (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The spelling (Nicola) is already correct - and no change is necessary. JuliaDrydon (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. No WP:RS provided to show the current spelling is an error, and primary sources—while not something that may be used in the article—show that the subject of the article uses the current spelling. MIDI (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Missing white woman syndrome

I removed this term, again, because I am not sure what is gained by adding this as a "See Also" link. Why is it essential?

The Wikipedia article on "missing white woman syndrome" literally admits that it is a problematic term, which uses race as a defining factor, but goes on to state that other factors (education, age, class) can play a role also. It is a flawed concept therefore.

Why are certain users so desperate to include a problematic, contradictory and potentially-offensive term, in this article about a woman who has more than likely recently died. What do we gain from doing so, aside from provoking unecessary reactions?

I would like the user(s) who repeatedly add this term back into this subsection, to consider what exactly they are gaining from having this in the article on Nicola Bulley. It does not further understanding about this particular incident. It is merely a generic term which does not apply to this article. Nicola was a middle aged woman who suffered from mental health issues, she is not the classic person to which this "syndrome" typically applies.

To refer to it as a syndrome is a misnomer also. It is a media buzz-phrase that should not belong in educational and informative discussion.

I am sure this summary of mine will simply be ignored and the edit reversed... I am however perplexed as to why other users are so desperate to have this irrelevant term in this article to begin with. It does not further understanding or knowledge about this incident. I don't particularly think it does anything other than let people know that such a flawed and outdated term even exists.

Thanks :) Reduolf13 (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, though, before this section is closed, just to say I agree with you. doktorb _words^deeds doktorb _words^deeds 21:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Missing white woman syndrome is a valid External link not because it implies that Bulley had any condition for which this syndrome applies, but because her being missing elicited a phenominal amount of media and public attention that is not typically seen when the 'disappeared' person is a girl or woman of color, or male. List of people who disappeared mysteriously: 1990–present - the other External link - has a list of disappearances for which there are articles at Wikipedia. It is predominantly female, suggesting that more media attention is given to disappearances of women. David notMD (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Anyone else want to express an opinion here? This has been a recent hot button, with some edit warring from an IP who wanted it removed. David notMD (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that it's perfectly fine to keep that article in the See also section, as it does relate to the article in that Bulley was a middle-aged, middle/upper class white woman. greyzxq ^talk 23:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Her age puts her outside the usual demographic of high-profile missing people. I can't think of any other non-famous women over 40 whose disappearances attracted anywhere near as much media & public attention. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

We're here to build an encyclopaedia. Is the MWWS article one a reader may plausibly want to read off the back of this article? Yes. MOS:SEEALSO says "One purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category." I think that justifies a link to MWWS. What I wouldn't be happy with is us categorising this as a case of MWWS, which would fail WP:V as I haven't seen a WP:RS mention of it. But the "See also" link isn't doing that, it's just creating an internal link to a similar subject. MIDI (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The link should be incorporated into the body if sources supporting its use can be found, otherwise, it's OR (or COATRACK) and should be removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Speedy move. Doesn't seem controversial, now that her death has sadly been confirmed. And as for the manner of death, we can always amend again if some cause is later confirmed in sources, but for now this is accrurate and as precise as it can be.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Disappearance of Nicola Bulley → Death of Nicola Bulley – Now that her death is confirmed, the article title should be updated in line with WP:DEATHS. Iffy★Chat -- 18:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per flowchart: as far as I'm aware, I don't think they have given the cause of death yet so seems most likely this will be the right title among current information. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support - per above. Blanchey (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support as confirmed Polyamorph (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support as the most recent update has announced the sad news. Moondragon21 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support as she actually is dead. HenPedia (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Opposed as you don't know the *manner* of death. If she was murdered, traditionally the title of the article would reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A211:B42:5580:105A:150B:C315:B5A6 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Comment this news report says this death would be investigated, we should know exactly what happened in due course while this move discussion is still in progress. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per proposal and precedent. MIDI (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support, as article is now mainly about her death now. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

England

My edit to the infobox, changing |location=St. Michael's on Wyre, Lancashire, United Kingdom to |location=St. Michael's on Wyre, Lancashire, England has been reverted with th3 edit summary:

this isn't a parochial magazine though, it's a global encyclopaedia, and on a map of the world, or even one of just Europe, you won't see that, but should see this

Since I did not claim that this is a parochial magazine, and since this is not a map of the world, I'm not sure of the relevance of the claim. In any case, St. Michael's on Wyre is indisputably in England; and "England" is a more precise locator than "United Kingdom". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

But given this is a world encyclopaedia, and that the "United Kingdom" is the sovereign country in which St Michael's on Wyre is located, why would we want make life difficult for those good citizens of the other 190-odd countries who are not aware of which internationally recognised state England is a part of? I favour including the sovereign country level (Albania, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, United Kingdom, United States, etc.) for all defining locations.

What is the point of stopping at some subdivision of the sovereign country that you need local knowledge of to be able to place it on the world map?

It could be interpreted, by some, as a sort of colonial arrogance, expecting 'Johnny-foreigner' to know the traditions, and naming conventions of historical British kingdoms and empires. Why not use Northumbria instead of England? It pre-dates England in the same way that England pre-dates the UK. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Your presumption that using "England" would "make life difficult for those good citizens of the other 190-odd countries" is false. Your attempt to dismiss this as "a sort of colonial arrogance" doubly so, and unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is the nation state here, so seems preferable to me; although I am also aware that England is used in some other places...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we could split the difference and say Lancashire, England, UK, which is a) shorter and b) conveys more information. It should not be controversial to say Lancashire, England, but there you go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

AfD2

Sadly, the recovery of a body now suggests that the event is merely a misadventure. As such, the topic doesn't merit an article. My prayers are with Nicola's family. Izzy (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Even though I started the first AfD, I agree now that the article diserves to be retained, given the long period between her disappearance and her body being found, and the very large amount of press and public attention to the case in the interim. See page views per day for how much Wikipedia attention this has. David notMD (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, David notMD. I hear what you say. But people fall in rivers , streams and drainage ditches every day - occasionally with fatal consequences. Let's give it a few more days to see if anything notable arises.Izzy (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to start one ( I will stay away), but given the overwhelming "Keep" comments at AfD1, I expect same. David notMD (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't know the cause of death, or if it's her. In April 2009, a body found in the River Ouse in Fulford, North Yorkshire was speculated to be that of Claudia Lawrence, but wasn't. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Notability does not decay; if the subject was notable at the last AfD, it's notable now. Furthermore, an IP noted above "The disappearance itself isn't notable; the media circus surrounding it is, however"; that also has not changed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• News reports about the "unusually strong public interest" (Guardian, Feb 19, 2023 "Bulley’s disappearance sparked unusually strong public interest, with amateur detectives and YouTubers making ghoulish pilgrimages to the area as they shared their unsubstantiated theories on the case"); U.K. woman’s disappearance prompts wave of amateur ‘TikTok detectives’ (WaPo, Feb. 18, 2023, "The puzzling disappearance of a 45-year-old woman has captivated Britain, fed a national debate about trust in police and launched a wave of crime tourism to the small English village") including the "national debate" suggest support for notability, per WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:EFFECT, that could reasonably be expected to further develop in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi guys. If it is confirmed that Nicola's demise was an accidental drowning, then her 23 day disappearance itself ceases to be notable. My guess is that the media circus and armchair sleuthing surrounding that disappearance will quickly dissipate. Notability does decay. But let us revisit this matter in a few weeks time.Izzy (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTTEMPORARY: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.". HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Andy Mabbett. I hear what you say. I guess an incident prompting mad social behaviour does constitute notability. But I still suggest the matter of this article be reviewed in a few weeks time.Izzy (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

From my view, there appears to be a shift from earlier reports (e.g. 'Police tell people to stop', [1], [2]) towards secondary coverage, e.g. as noted in my comment above, the Guardian describing some conduct as "ghoulish" and WaPo describing "crime tourism". In addition, WaPo also notes a "national debate about trust in police", which seems to be a distinct and widespread impact. WP:NCRIME includes If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred... since that would not make the matter less notable. Secondary coverage of the impacts of this event appears to further support notability per the guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Beccaynr. I am unsure how crime comes into this. Outside the wilder elements of social media nobody has ever proposed that Nicola was murdered. From day 1 of her disappearance it was considered likely that she suffered an accidental drowning with the possibility that she had 'done a runner' being the only faintly realistic alternative. But hey .... let's revisit this in a few weeks time to consider whether or not Nicola's death in itself meets notability criteria. Maybe the events surrounding her 23 day disappearance are notable regardless of the mundane circumstances of the death itself?. Izzy (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Izzy. I don't beleive Beccaynr ever suggested that a crime had been committed, let alone murder, but, as you asked "how crime comes into this", as stated numerous times, "crime tourism" and, as stated, WP:NCRIME, which again does not suggest a crime having been committed, includes the phrase ...the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred..., which I beleive was the point you missed. 86.30.69.219 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a very high-profile case and there has been a lot of criticism of the police, the media & many members of the general public. It's easily notable enough for an article, even if it's proved that she accidentally fell into the river & drowned. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:NCRIME is a section of the WP:EVENT guideline, which from my view, encourages looking at the sources in the context of the entire guideline, not the specific circumstances of the death. That is why I noted secondary coverage of effects and impacts, because these types of sources seem to support the notability of this event. I don't think the context in which I discussed this part of the guideline in the recent AfD was particularly clear (it was related to a question about which guideline could possibly support the argument that an accident is not notable, and I answered generally), because the part of the guideline I quote above indicates how a lack of a crime is not the end of a notability assessment. Beccaynr (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2023

change "She then joined a Microsoft Teams call at 9:01..." to "She then joined a conference call at 9:01..."

change "At 9:30, the Teams call was ended by its host." to "At 9:30, the conference call was ended by its host."

change "...(which was still connected to the Teams call)..." to "...(which was still connected to the conference call)..."

Which software was used is neither critical nor useful information, and stating the name 3 times can be viewed as brand advertising which I thought was discouraged in unrelated articles. 86.30.69.219 (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done I'm not sure that we can use "Microsoft Teams call" interchangably with "conference call"; Teams is videoconferencing, which is alluded to in this article (i.e. Bulley left her camera unconnected). The actual platform used is (as you say) not critical, but if we're going to change it we shouldn't sacrifice the accuracy we currently have. I've removed one instance (the last) of "Teams" where it really makes no difference, but not because of advertising (it clearly isn't) but just because it's superfluous. MIDI (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2023 (2)

change "St. Michael's on Wyre, Lancashire, England" to "St. Michael's on Wyre, Lancashire, United Kingdom"

in the article, to be consistent with that used in the infobox 86.30.69.219 (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. --Mvqr (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Slight thing

I don't think anyone could be 45 if they were born in the early 90s. At least not right now Great Mercian (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this in reference to "Nicola Jane Bulley, aged 45, was born in Essex and moved to Lancashire in the late 1990s"? I think it's obvious that "in the late 1990s" refers to when she moved to Lancashire, not when she was born. Could you suggest alternative wording? MIDI (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

look I'm more confused than you. Great Mercian (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Image?

Would it be possible for someone to include an image of Bulley? Unless people would consider that insensitive. ErraticDrumlin (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The finding of the body of the deceased

Around the time the body of the deceased was found in the river, the UK tabloid the Daily Mirror and/or its sister online paper published an article about the finding of the body:

“Man who found missing Nicola Bulley's body a mile from bench is 'psychic medium'”

“Jason Dean Rothwell was pictured alongside the River Wyre at the weekend appearing to assist police with the location and recovery of a body - now confirmed as the missing 45-year-old”

By Abigail O'Leary News Reporter Hollie Bone News Reporter 19:19, 20 Feb 2023 UPDATED 07:13, 21 Feb 2023

“A man who helped locate missing Nicola Bulley's body is a self-described 'spiritual medium, psychic and tarot reader'.

Jason Dean Rothwell found the mum's body a mile from a river bench where her phone was found.

Mr Rothwell and a friend were seen alongside the River Wyre at the weekend, appearing to assist police with the location and recovery of a body - now confirmed as the missing 45-year-old mum.

Along with a friend, Mr Rothwell tonight said they "assisted police", however stressed he was not asked by Lancashire police or Nicola's family to offer his "spiritualists or medium" services.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-who-found-nicola-bulleys-29266939 Humanity Dick (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting any of this is added?? What an utter load of tabloid crap. 86.187.165.69 (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Inquest findings

It was reported that no alcohol was detected in the deceased's body and that medication was within therapeutic limits. Death would have been very rapid. These facts should be added. In the current text iPhone and Fitbit could be linked. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The Independent lists "10 key things" learned on the first day of inquest:

1. She drowned and was alive when she entered the water.
2. Her dog Willow was seen in a ‘giddy’ state by the side of the river bur wasn't "acting chaotic".
3. She may have sunk under the surface of the river after she fell in.
4. She would only have been able to hold her breath for "one or two seconds at best".
5. She may have lost consciousness in 20 or 30 seconds.
6. Residents reported nothing out of the ordinary in Ms Bulley’s appearance.
7. She was set to attend a social event that weekend.
8. She had not been drinking.
9. She was able to swim but the current was too strong.
10. She was on medication: beta blocker propranolol and painkiller paracetamol were found in her system.

Some or all of these could be added to the article. On the second day of the inquest, family said she would never have abandoned her dog Willow, which she treated "like a third child". 86.187.160.141 (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the mentions of alcohol and medication should be added. Also more detail on how quickly she probably would have died, and the fact her body have have sunk under the surface. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Afd#2

Hi once more guys. I have put this article up for a second deletion discussion. See my comments above. I will hear what everyone has to say with interest. Izzy (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Saved as keep - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Nicola Bulley doktorb _words^deeds 17:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Delete this page. It's completely unnecessary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How unfair for family. Have some empathy. 2A02:C7C:C982:6D00:2439:56D1:299E:9472 (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, 2A02:C7C:C982:6D00:2439:56D1:299E:9472.The substance of the topic is that a person fell in a river and drowned. Hardly a notable event and definitely not worthy of a WP article. However, in its first 23 days the topic was an unexplained disappearance and this provoked a media circus. After all, Nicola had blond hair and blue eyes, lived in a posh house, drove a newish Merc and worked as a mortgage broker. The media circus may in itself be a notable topic. I suggest parking this one for now and maybe raising the matter of possible article deletion in a few months time. Izzy (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The AFD discussion and #AfD2 above both clearly show that the consensus is that the subject of this article is notable. WP:NOTTEMPORARY is the pertinent guideline here—if the subject was notable then, it's notable now, and will always be; waiting an arbitrary duration doesn't change this. Similarly, the story dying down in the news is not an indicator of notability. MIDI (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi MIDI. The original AfD discussion took place while this was an unexplained disappearance. It subsequently turned out to be a death by misadventure - and hence a non-event. But let's leave the matter for a while and return to it at some point in the future when things are seen in context. best wishes. Izzy (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTTEMPORARY states the exact opposite of what you said:

"While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article." Stanley Oliver (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

ps I think Wikipedia:Notability (events) is the critical guideline here and the Bulley death clearly fails events notability criteria. But let's leave this a while. Izzy (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the event itself is not notable. The key point being Wikipedia:Notability_(events) Inclusion Crteria point 4:

"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."

So what "something further" gives this event "enduring significance"? The amount of media coverage it attracted is ruled out by "widely reported at the time" and the amout of interest generated on social media can be ruled out by "viral phenomena". I don't see anything else which can be claimed to make this death notable. Stanley Oliver (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Jim, Jim2, Oliver, Spider, Stanley etc etc. Bulley's inquest is listed for 26 June 2023 at County Hall, Preston. If the verdict is "death by misadventure" (or similar) then I favour article deletion and will propose accordingly. But let us see how things develop.Izzy (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The verdict will probably be accidental death, but this article should be kept regardless of that. Although this apparently accidental death isn't remarkable by itself, the responses to it make it notable. The police and the private search team were widely criticised for their failure to find Bulley's body. Some media outlets & some members of the public have been criticised for their responses to the disappearance. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Jim2. We will have to agree to differ on this one. However, I am sure editors such as Stanley Oliver will support me when I propose article deletion. Izzy (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, guys. The Bulley inquest is now underway. Note the pathologist's comment "Home Office pathologist Dr Alison Armour told an inquest at Preston County Hall that there was no evidence that Ms Bulley had been assaulted or harmed in the lead up to her death ..... My opinion as to the cause of death is that it was drowning.". Provided the coroner's verdict is accidental death, death by misadventure or similar then I fear that this article must be deleted.Izzy (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

And I "fear" that this article's deletion will be discussed fully in a RfD, as per the agreed process. How long do you intend the RfD to run before requesting an uninvolved close? Yes, as expected, it was accidental drowning. Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I know it's not a vote. But currently we have one delete and ten keeps. Just sayin'. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delete this article for decency

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This poor woman is dead. Her poor family. Why don't you get a job, or get some friends. Get a bloody life and stop trying to get some esteem from other people's lives. You are not an editorial team, I dare say that the majority of you can't even get or hold down a job. Your articles are invariably inaccurate, and this is no exception. This is ghoulish and you really should delete it. Get back under your stones or get some semblance of a life or just get on with real life. 148.252.133.92 (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This was a notable news event and Wikipedia covers those if its considered well sourced by news services as this was doktorb _words^deeds 18:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

If you had a job, you wouldn't have time to be making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. PeachyBum07 (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't have articles about dead people? That should fee up some space. You say "your articles are invariably inaccurate, and this is no exception." So what's inaccurate here? Then you could make a start on the other 6,674,955. Many thanks. 86.187.172.31 (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

If we really shouldn't have articles about dead people then that means we need to delete the majority of our biography content. This is Paul (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that IP 148 is suggesting that the notability of this case arose only because of the media circus and the police failings. Unfortunately, their anti-Wiki ranting has got the better of them. So they will likely be ignored. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The article has been saved again Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Nicola Bulley doktorb _words^deeds 17:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi once more guys. As the inquest proceeds I become more convinced than ever that this article needs to be deleted. Just because somebody falls in a river and drowns doesn't mean that he/she merits a WP article. Decency doesn't come into the matter.Izzy (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not the death itself that's notable but the reaction to it, by police, media, the public, etc. There's also an ongoing investigation into how the police handled the whole thing. This is Paul (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi This is Paul. I hear what you say. But consider this. The title of the article is "Death of Nicola Bulley". That death is clearly not notable. If the title were "Media and Public reaction to the Death of Nicola Bulley" then you might have a point. best wishes. Izzy (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Then moving than name would be an easy alternative to deleting the entire article? Although I'm not sure there is anything wrong with the current name anyway. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi 205.239.40.3. Fair point. Changing the name of the article is possible. But we would then have to determine whether or not media treatment of the Bulley death is notable in itself. I express no opinion on that. best wishes. Izzy (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Izzy: The coroner ruled Nicola Bulley's death was accidental. I previously stated my view (above) that Nicola Bulley's death - and the media treatment / public reaction to it - fail Wikipedia:Notability_(events). The media have a history of getting themselves into a frenzy over certain events which, in these times, can be exacerbated by social-media types. Tragically, a woman fell in a river and drowned. For several days, her disapperance was unexplained and it became a media circus and social media phenomenon. An investiation cleared the police of doing anything wrong in relation to the release of her personal information. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopedia - these events are patently not encyclopedic. If the article is nominated for deletion (again), I intend to support. Stanley Oliver (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wooodham Ferrers

The article already mentions that she went to school in South Woodham Ferrers using this BBC source. Perhaps the memorial gathering by her friends there should also be mentioned? 86.187.227.254 (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

She also attended Thurrock Technical College in Grays, Essex, from September 1994 to July 1996, as shown here. I think she was born in Thurrock. Thanks. 86.187.227.254 (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Inquest

"On 27 June 2023, the inquest heard that the cause of Bulley's death was accidental drowning". Surely that was the outcome of the inquest and so it's what it found? It had earlier heard that death resulted from drowning, but the accidental cause was a decision for the coroner to make? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)