Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carola Rackete

{{notavote}}

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Carola Rackete}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carola_Rackete Stats])

: ({{Find sources AFD|Carola Rackete}})

Seems to me no more notable than many other people caught in similar circumstances notable for one event. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - First of all, in my opinion WP:BLP1E does not apply, because per condition #2, the person of the article must be a low-profile individual. In my opinion, Ms. Rackete {{tq|has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity}}, because she docked with her ship despite [https://www.dw.com/en/what-drives-sea-watch-captain-carola-rackete-to-rescue-migrants/a-49415737 knowing] that she would be arrested (which, of course, would be subject to media attention - which I guess was also one of her goals, achieving media attention for her cause). For that reason, WP:BIO1E applies instead of BLP1E. BIO1E says that when {{tq|an individual plays a major role in a minor event ... it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event}}. Because, for as far as I know, no article exists for the event/incident, it is OK to have an article on her as a person. WP:GNG is, by the way, easily met with the refs present in the article. --MrClog (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia:Notability failed, 193.159.13.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

: Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep She is one of a notable persons in a longrunning issue (saving refugees) that is still not resolved. Until her case (and the whole issue) is resolved, it will be worth knowing about her. History will tell whether this still the case ten years from now. IMHO, a delete-request is premature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DE:2F3E:5D00:343A:494F:CCAA:8028 (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

: Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - If there's an article about Pia Klemp, this has much more reason to stay since the events are more relevant and notable. Beware of the POV people (mainly anonymous IPs) that will probably flood this discussion for political reasons. --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

: Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Rackete has received significant coverage in a variety of reliable sources with sufficient information about her available to avoid a pseudo biography. And as MrClog points out, WP:BLP1E #2 is not fulfilled here, because even without violating WP:CRYSTAL, it's pretty clear she will receive further significant coverage as her incarceration and prosecution continue. This brings us to WP:BIO1E, which is the only guideline that would argue against her inclusion if the event she was notable for had an article. Which it does not, as far as I can tell. As long as that is the case, this article is allowed under the guidelines. If and when an article about the incident is created, her article should probably be merged there though. Regards SoWhy 20:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep She had a profile long before this most recent incident - e.g. [https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/interview/88212/_if_we_let_those_people_sail_on_we_know_they_will_die__carola_rackete July 2018], which, together with coverage for the current incident fulfills our notability requirements. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - The article on Carola Rackete meets the WP:BASIC requirement of being notable because she has received significant international media coverage from multiple independent and credible sources. Moreover, the international press has portrayed several biographies of her in different languages, including French, Italian, Spanish, English, German, Dutch. The event is expected to have an impact on Italian and European politics both on immigration and on search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean. The WP:BASIC is a sufficient condition of being worthy of an article even if she had to remain a low-profile individual in the future. Kind regards, Frankie8 20:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesco8868 (talk • contribs)

• I consider this article for relevant. Saving lives is not a crime but obeying international law on seas. This woman is an example for civil courage and therefore deserves an article on Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.40.2.144 (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I wont tell what my personal opinion is about this person, her descend, her analytics and so on but this amalgame made her perform an act of singularity to hack current international law to check the validity of national law in context of validity or abuse of human rights by creating a case.

: Since years there has been no stronger crash test on international human rights issues. deSLA enAFD is requested by political opinion rather than any applicable filtering issues or wiki homeostasis or overcrowding. It is of utmost importance to keep her in a neutral wikipedia bc. obviously known issues in dewiki.

: Ossip Groth (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete First of all nobody ever heard of her before this incident. Second if we make this page, where does it stop? Are we going to make a page for every person that is for one time in the news because of the migrant issue? This can create a situation where people are making such pages out of protest, like when Trump got elected and every high school protest wanted to be mentioned in WP. Soon we have a proliferation of pages that will be uninteresting at the moment the person is out of the media focus.--AntonHogervorst (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

:: Please see Wikipedia:Notability is not temporary and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We do not decide or care why reliable secondary sources commit significant coverage to a subject, we just care whether they do. If they do, we include it, even if some of us disagree with the underlying reasons for the coverage (see this AFD for an example of why to keep an article about someone from the opposite political side despite clear disgust voiced by participants about the subject itself). On a side note, Tagishsimon has pointed out that she was interviewed by a reliable source a year before the incident. Regards SoWhy 07:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

::: Okay but then Keep, but make it neutral, these sort of pages quickly become solely edited by people in favour of her cause. It should not become a protest against Salvini page. A fanpage. --AntonHogervorst (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

:::: Thanks for your reconsideration. It is one of the project's goals to have articles which are comprehensive, facts-based with reliable references per WP:RS, and written from a neutral point of view per WP:NPOV. If you think something needs to be improved (and you can't improve it yourself) please leave a note on the article talk page for others to take care of it. However, the current (or even a possible future) quality status of an article (or lack thereof - hopefully not!) is never a valid criterium for deletion - this is explicitly ruled out in our notability guideline at WP:NEXIST and WP:CONTN. That's something for our normal ongoing article improvement processes, not for extra-ordinary processes like AfD.

:::: --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Weak keep per media coverage. I think it's a useful entry to have. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a highly relevant topic with international relevance, covered in all kinds of media in many countries. Hundreds of top reliable and independent references can be provided. Notability is clearly given per WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. As of now the German WP article has seen about 87,000 page views in just a couple of days, the English WP is closely following with more than 33,000 hits already. While these numbers will go down again, with a court case coming and the underlying problem unsolved it should be obvious that the topic will remain relevant for many years to come, so it has lasting encyclopedic relevance. Also, this is not the first time Rackete has been in the news, so this is not even a case of WP:BIO1E any more, but even if it would, as an encyclopedia it is our very duty to have articles about topics such as this one (WP:BIO: "remarkable, significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"). Please do a better homework WP:BEFORE nominating articles for deletion in order not to unnecessarily bind the precious time and energy of other editors which could otherwise do more useful work in main space than wasting it in avoidable discussions. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - just about meets WP:GNG requirements for me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia:Notability failed, she got 15 minutes of fame. A one time event individual. Parts from her article could be moved to

: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lampedusa_immigrant_reception_center

: Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - Carola Rackete is a key character in an international event involving several European governments such as Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands, and also EU representaives are participating in the current debate. Further, I think the circumstances of this incident are quite exceptional, considering the legal situation and the fact that the Sea-Watch 3 and the Italian patrol boat have come near to collision. It is likely that this event will be seen as a landmark in the history of migrations. 131.114.58.49 (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Andrea Domenici

• Keep - Wikipedia:Notability is obvious, there are abundant references.--Medol (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia:Notability failed--Lemure Saltante (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

:: If you think so, then, I think, it is high time for you to actually read the guideline you refer to, in particular WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if [...] it meets either the general notability guideline [...], or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline [...]" which, in this case, is WP:BIO.

:: In WP:GNG you might put particular attention to: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

:: And in WP:BASIC criteria are as follows: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

:: These criteria are all fulfilled with in-depth media coverage in independent and top reliable sources internationally (hundreds of them!).

:: --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per Tagishsimon. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I think it might be worth pointing out that out criteria is notability, not worthiness or meritoriousness.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

:: While it is always worth to remind us of the criteria of notability, may I remind you of the actual wording in our notability guidelines WP:N and WP:BIO, per which this includes subjects "remarkable, significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" and "being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary." I consider properties such as "worthiness" (-> "significant"), "meritoriousness" (-> "remarkable") as supporting notability. The actual criteria can be found in WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, already discussed further above. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Significant coverage, previous noteworthiness, WP:GNG clearly met. Highly noteworthy event, abundant sourcing. Tone needs a little work, but that’s just form, not substance. Montanabw^(talk) 15:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: The fact that the nominator of this AfD has now also nominated the similar Pia Klemp article for deletion, instead of first waiting for the outcome of this AfD and possibly learn a few bits from it, is really bad style, if not unconstructive and possibly agenda motivated. At the very least it shows that the nominator does not care about other opinions and constructive collaboration. Very sad. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

:: I have read and commented and changed the Pia Klemp article in German and English. And for both articles (Carole Rackete and Pia Klemp) in both languages I have the same comment: May be it could be relevant but the bias just set my teeth on edge. Okay you are right that it should not matter for deletion. But all those four pages where so fan based, sorry for using such a strong word, I can imagine that someone out of the same irritation puts it on the AfD list.--AntonHogervorst (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete this will likely get kept, but it really strikes me as a WP:BLP1E (even after reading #2) and potentially WP:NOTNEWS, especially given a lot of her personal life is now up on the article. No problem on restoring the article if coverage is sustained or if she becomes notable for something else. SportingFlyer T·C 20:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - I think that this page is a form of journalism and it is not what Wikipedia is; if a person wants to read some news, he can normally buy a newspaper. 2019-07-03T01:45:43‎ TheWorm12 (talk)

• Keep Obviously this is going towards no concensus, but I will not ehtat the past coverage found by Tagishimon and the current coverage equals basic notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per Tagishsimon. --NiTen (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Guidelines and policies nonwithstanding, I don't believe there is an objective reason for having a separate article for this person. She's only known for current events involving her vessel, and except for some meager biographical information there'll be nothing in her article that isn't a duplicate of things already covered elsewhere. Doesn't mean she can't get an article if/when she continues to make a name for herself of course. 188.108.118.120 (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Just the fact that out of all available media reports I have decided to read the Wikipedia article on Ms. Rackete is telling enough, I think. She has become a person of considerable public interest due to the recent incident but I guess very many people believe she is acting in public interest and thus is not only a professional captain of a ship but also an activist which most often means a public figure. Beside that, I see no reason why different criteria would apply for Ms. Rackete than for the captain of Costa Concordia Francesco Schettino or a convicted British PI Glenn Mulcaire, to name just two examples I consider valid for comparison.89.142.47.61 (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep, the sheer amount of in-depth articles on her and her background go beyond the usual news reporting on such cases. —Nightstallion 08:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Replace with a new page related to the event for which he became famous, as in cases of other notable events. I guess that the person is less relevant at the moment than the episode in which he was involved. BTW, the facts are (probably?) still ongoing. --Marco Ciaramella (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.