Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna and Olivia case


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 16:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Anna and Olivia case

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

While this case was in the news for many obvious reasons, there's no indication this was a notable alleged parental abduction, nor that their deaths will result in changes to legislation or otherwise have a lasting impact. Star  Mississippi  15:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  Star   Mississippi  15:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  Star   Mississippi  15:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article needs some work but for GNG is easily met by the international coverage. This tragic case will most likely have sustained reporting into the future, since two people are still missing. In illustration, El Pais published a long article last month. Mujinga (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable simply because one victim's body was recovered from the seabed, after being found at a depth of 1,000 metres under water. This is like finding a needle in a haystack that is a kilometre away. It has a lasting influence of what can now be done with remote sensing technology. It demonstrates that the technology already exists to find MH370. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Perceived subjective importance and unverifiable speculation and presumptions about future notability are not enough to support inclusion. For this tragic event, there does not appear to be objective support for inclusion per WP:EVENTCRITERIA, i.e. whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, and the January 2022 El Pais article noted above only recites the basic facts, without re-analysis or indications of a WP:LASTING impact, e.g. the event has become a precedent or catalyst for something else. There were protests (e.g. BBC (June 15 2021, "The sisters' case has shaken Spain, and there have been a number of protests against gender-based violence"), but my search for sources beyond the burst of news in the article finds similar news reports and tabloid coverage, which seems to indicate that while this gruesome domestic violence case has gotten more attention than many, it does not appear to have a demonstrable long-term impact, as outlined in the WP:EVENT notability guideline. WP:NOTNEWS therefore appears to apply, because we need to consider the the enduring notability of persons and events. Beccaynr (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the amount of coverage that it has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.255.37 (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.