Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Schettino

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 redirect to Costa Concordia disaster. per WP:SNOW Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Schettino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Opening a more formal AFD based on cycle of redirects and replacement of that redirect with short biographical articles which essentially summarize the target of the redirect Costa Concordia disaster. While this person is known worldwide as the captain of this wrecked cruiseship, this is all he's known for and there isn't sufficient material to draw on outside of this event to overcome WP:BIO1E. RadioFan (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:BLP1E, though with no prejudice as to possible future notability.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Worth noting that the Italian version of this article has been deleted multiple times.--RadioFan (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Costa Concordia disaster. Schettino is only known for the one event and there's no indication he'll be of lasting significance.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. One-eventer, belongs inside the Concordia article only. Some people's passions are inflamed at the moment due to recency. Let's avoid the hassle of re-deleting the article next year after no one cares about him any more. - Frankie1969 (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Lock to prevent recreation. Please know that 4 different admins have deleted him from the Italian Wikipedia, and they are in a better position to judge the sources than we are. Speciate (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Costa Concordia disaster, although opening an AfD wasn't the best way to resolve the disagreement, as no one is arguing for deletion. Anyhow, Schettino does not pass WP:BLP1E at this time, and a redirect to the main article would be optimum. Goodvac (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As noted in the nomination, this AFD was opened to provide a more formal process. The article has been redirected and rewritten several times. Having an AFD to point to when an action that is contrary to concensus is much easier to get admin action on than pointing to a disjointed Talk page discussion. Paperwork such as this is an unfortunately reality.--RadioFan (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That formal process could have been a talk page discussion with votes, closed by an admin after seven days. Goodvac (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: In the future, why not invite people from the Wikipedia of X language when discussing sources in that language on here? They can help WhisperToMe (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Costa Concordia disaster and either semi- or full-protect the redirect to prevent it from being abused for all the wrong reasons. Far too early to be creating a separate article for this man when his only claim to notability is inextricably bound up with the shipwreck's notability. SuperMarioMan 20:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Costa Concordia disaster until (if) it meets the bar similar to the captain of the Exxon Valdez. --Varaldarade (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect As I have already written [1], my tagging the article for deletion was a bit hasty, and as some users have pointed out there are indeed examples in Wikipedia where less notable individuals have their own entry. Nonetheless I think a redirect is the best solution for the time being. Itemirus^{Message me!} 08:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect --dionyziz (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now. When the dust settles from the Costa Concordia disaster, perhaps then it can be better determined if Schettino needs his own article. I agree with Varaldarade's thought of Schettino needing to meet the notability of someone like the Exxon Valdez captain. — Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or rather, Needed (normally, an article in question can be reviewed and improved, why not here?) Anyhow, the single-event rule is not absolute and states specifically that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This applies to Francesco Schettino. While FS's life is not an open book, early profiles have appeared in the press and give us information and had been referenced. Thus age, place of birth/upbringing, education, duration of service, career at Costa: all this is known, and there is no overriding need to withhold this information from WP readers. Further, there is the issue of FS's treatment in the media which would be of interest to place in the WP article: FS is vilified as the "most hated man in Italy", a womanizer, coward, autocrat, daredevil, accused of insubordination, etc. Then there are he legal proceedings that are starting to unfurl with him in the center. The idea, let us wait and see how things develop, maybe later an article can be generated, - this it not how articles about people in the news are typically generated. People in entertainment, sports, and politics become eligible for a WP entry once they reach notability, not at some ill-defined point later. Schettino is notable because: 1. Just being the captain of the largest passenger ship ever that capsized makes him notable already. But also, 2. Highly visible deviation of time-homered maritime custom when a captain should leave the ship 3. Role in death of passengers 4. Role in saving passengers 5. Unfolding legal proceedings 6. Treatment in media/media frenzy.Ekem (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Costa Concordia disaster. IMO: even if he is convicted and sentenced to prison in the future his sole claim to notability (in this case notoriety) is in relation to the disaster, and any updates re Schettino should be done at the Costa Concordia article. Quis separabit? 17:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I recommend closing this discussion as redirect under WP:SNOWBALL, given the almost unanimous (with two exceptions) consensus on this forum. Quis separabit? 17:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC) (comment updated)[reply]

• Comment I wouldn't have an objection to speedy closure per WP:SNOWBALL with the result of redirect to Costa Concordia disaster and full-protection for at least 6 months. RadioFan (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or rather, Needed Pretty much what Ekem said. I would say this falls into the "assassination" example in WP:BLP1E quiet nicely as he could be described as assassinating the ship. He is cited in the main article and by multiple sources as the primary (or even sole) cause of the shipwreck. His Arrest is notable, but a full write up about his arrest doesn't belong in the article about the disaster. His pending trial is notable and while information revealed at trail will be used in the article about the disaster the trial itself will doesn't belong. There is already a great deal of information regarding this man that shouldn't be in the article but is notable and should have wikipedia entries. Tmckeage (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Much of the hype over this article is a good example of WP:RECENTISM on wikipedia. After a first initial flurry of edits and articles, which reflected the sudden surge of news reports in the immediate aftermath of the sinking, this is now tailing off. News reports are fewer, the rolling coverage is being replaced with occasional updates. He is notable for WP:ONEEVENT at the moment, and my feeling is that the level of interest currently seen in him will not be sustained enough for 'the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role' to merit a separate article. As an aside, an even more borderline example of this is the creation of the article on Sándor Fehér, who is one of what looks to be sadly over a dozen people to have died in this incident, but not otherwise independently notable beyond the circumstances of his death. But like Schettino the papers are scrambling to make a big deal about him. This article should probably be redirect/deleted as well. Benea (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree and have redirected it accordingly. At the time of writing, Costa Concordia disaster makes no mention whatsoever of Fehér, so I struggle to see any justification at all for a WP:SPINOUT article in this case. SuperMarioMan 11:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I'm the one who created this, and I did so as a redirect. ThFSPB (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There has been no article to discuss until now, just a "redirect". The tag says clearly "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked." So, here you have now an article with you can talk about.Ekem (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The last "article" version is available here if anyone needs to see it.--RadioFan (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.