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 snowball keep. Not even the nominator has provided a reason for actually removing the article, only for renaming it, and AfD isn't really the right way to handle rename requests. Closing before the already mildly contentious discussion degenerates into the usual partisanship surrounding topics related to this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Corrie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I have added this article for deletion as I believe Ms Corrie does not satisfy the requirements of WP:ONEEVENT. She is notable for nothing other than her death. Her life was not notable. I am completing this nomination for 24.61.10.180 (talk) --AniMate^talk

• in this case. WP:ONVEEVENT calls for merger to an article on the event, not outright deletion. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article, which i think has many problems, sails over the reliable sources and notability bar. The whole reason we have an article on her is the manner of her death, but that "event" took on a political life of its own, a political life deeply involved in examining her young life, chronicling it, praising it, attackign it at great length in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. I consider this a bad faith nom by the Ip, who refused repeated requests to create a user name so he could do this for himself.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Despite finishing this nomination for the IP, I think she is clearly notable. The sourcing is strong and verifiable. --AniMate^talk 03:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete I am the nominating IP. I nominated this page as it is utterly clear Ms Corrie only has a page on this wikipedia for one reason- her death. The circumstances and issues of her death generated a considerable amount of news. This I agree. However her life was entirely lacking in any notability. Thus she does not overcome the WP:ONEEVENT guideline. There have been many people who have been killed and their deaths generated a tremendous amount of media attention. I remember back to the PhD student at the University of Chicago who was killed on campus. His article on this wikipedia was deleted for the simple reason that his life was not notable. Only his death was. Thus, he did not survive the WP:ONEEVENT test. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amadou Cisse (student). In addition, Wikipedia is not a memorial, thus Ms Corrie's article must be deleted pursuant to WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Thus, Ms Corrie's aricle must be deleted or merged into other articles- such as one about IDF home demolitions as an accidental casuality. 24.61.10.180 (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Her death was a significant event, defined at WP:BLP by "how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." For example see [1] (an article about the subject just a few days old).

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator is correct that the otherwise non-notable subject is only notable for WP:ONEEVENT, her death. However, the subject is no longer living (indeed that is the point of the article), is not notable for anything that is likely to disparaging to her (fairly or unfairly, media coverage of Corrie's death has been overwhelmingly sympathetic to her and hostile to Isreal) and the worldwide publicity surrounding the incident that caused her death is an encyclopedic topic in its own right. The article is not a memorial (most of the article is about the events that occured as a result of her death, rather than a retelling of her life) and if the nominator or others feel that it is memorial-like, this can be corrected by editing, not deletion. The nominator has a reasonable case to argue for deletion but this is one of the very, very, very few ONEEVENT articles worthy of being kept as an encyclopedia topic. I would also resist the temptation to rename the article to something like Death of Rachel Corrie. The event is Rachel Corrie and Rachel Corrie is the natural name for an article about her death. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• obvious keep WP:ONEEVENT does not apply when "the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial" as "indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." this person has persistent and widespread coverage in multiple reliable sources. untwirl(talk) 03:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename to Death of Rachel Corrie. Similar to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, I think it's clear that her death was the larger more significant subject. The articles and the discussions about her life all stems from after her death, indicating that was the impetus for the coverage of her. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec) It's not going anywhere, but Rename to Death of Rachel Corrie. Corrie was not notable in life, and all extant notability stems from her rather unfortunate transformation into Saint Pancake. Renaming to focus on the event would help derail some of the spurious allegations that BLP applies to a person six years dead. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, dude, so not necessary. Please strike that out and if you want to discuss that again, we can go on at the article but have a little bit of respect. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Seconded. That's horrible. AniMate^talk 04:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and the only way of settling the article title will be an RfC. An event as widely covered as this, and giving rise to as much cultural followup as this, makes the person notable. My view is that the title should of course be the natural and obvious one where someone would look, which is the name. DGG (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously, and given this overwhelming support to keep the article there might as well be snow; DGG has argued convincingly to keep the article under this title. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete The nominator is right. The only thing significant about her is the highly politically charged aftermath of her death, which likely wouldn't have even happened had she not been a young American girl (sad but true). Anything (sourced) from this article that can be shoehorned into another on the diplomatic and political aftereffects of her death should be put there. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly, though tragically, notable. Agree with above that there is a WP:1E concern, but the event is unique to the person, hence the retention of this article shouldn't be in question. The recommendation to rename from User:Jclemens above is the logical solution in line with the letter of the policy, although I feel renaming an article to what is a more awkward title to satisfy the letter, rather than the intent of a policy, is a mistake. Nevertheless, the immediate decision to be made is one of deletion, and the content and the article should be kept.   user:j    (aka justen)   06:06, 8 May 2009 (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.