Talk:Death of Nicola Bulley/Archive 2

Delete this page. It's completely unnecessary

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

Delete this article for decency

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

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

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)

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)