Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. As to whether to keep or merge. But there's consensus to not delete. Sandstein 18:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Pia Klemp

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Pia Klemp (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notable for only one event. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Merge with Jugend Rettet for the moment. There's not much room to expand the article just yet. -- Luk talk 14:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Yep seems a good option. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Actually, there is quite a lot to add about her, some of which can be translated from the articles in the other Wikipedias, but there are also many other sources. She has received major and ongoing coverage in the media, even films have been produced about her, and she has received awards. Notability criteria for an article about her, not only about the main event or the organization, are clearly given per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 20:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Yes, but why? Is she more special than the 20 other people that are in the same situation? I have the idea that she is the best suited for public relations and therefo pushed forward in a media offensive now the crew members really can be convicted for human trafficking. In all that information about Pia Klemp there actually is no new data about the trial that has been going on since 2017.-- AntonHogervorst ( talk) 21:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I think you are making many assumptions we really should not make - "pushed forward"? "media offensive"? This sounds way too much of a conspiration theory to me.
Trying to answer your question, I don't know if there are 20 other people in the same situation, but it is a strawman argument, anyway - we don't have 20 other articles about those other people, and even if we had, this is irrelevant in a deletion discussion. The only argument that counts is notability - which can be either demonstrated by a fulfilled catalog of criteria or not. If we want an article about Pia Klemp, but she does not meet our notability criteria, we won't have an article. Likewise, if someone does not want an article about her, but she meets the notability criteria, we will have an article about her no matter what (given that someone will write one).
And if there would be 20 other people meeting our notability criteria, we can have 20 articles about them. The number of articles is don't care, because WP:NOTPAPER. What counts is notability. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Matthiaspaul: I read the german wikipedia entry and there's not much more, most of it revolves around the incident. I didn't check the other languages so maybe I missed something. -- Luk talk 13:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Thanks for checking the German Wikipedia, something that everyone should have done before casting a vote in this discussion, but unfortunately very few actually did.
Although I did not plan to work on the article and have no time for it right now, I have meanwhile added some stuff from the German WP to clearly demonstrate notability per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO (awards, feature-length films). There would be a lot more to add to the actual biography, but this will have to wait until later.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Like: "On 4 April 2019 Westdeutscher Rundfunk broadcast an 8-minute documentary about Klemp." WDR is a regional German channel, 8 minutes documentary. That is one of the most notable things about her? -- AntonHogervorst ( talk) 17:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Westdeutscher Rundfunk (WDR) is, by number of employees, the second-largest public-service broadcaster in Europe after the BBC, and the largest supplier within the German ARD network. In addition to national TV and radio productions, they produce one regional TV and six radio channels for the state of North-Rhine-Westphalia. WDR is among Germany's top sources for independent quality journalism. To get their time is a clear sign of a huge public interest in the topic indicating notability. Also, this is only one out of several broadcasts I listed after searching for a few minutes, there are more...
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 00:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 14:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 14:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 14:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as creator of the English version of the article; saving the lives of a thousand people and being arrested and tried for it is more than one event. Whether she ends up being convicted or not will be yet another event, so this AfD seems quite overeager -- Kendrick7 talk 15:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Would you care to explain why this isn't multiple events? -- Kendrick7 talk 01:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Kendrick7: How am I supposed to make that argument when I have no idea what the second event even is? SportingFlyer T· C 02:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
They do above, they are saying that committing a crime, being caught for the crime, being tried for the crime, and being sentenced for the crime are all separate events. Rather then being part of the same event (in effect), WP:PERP may be worth a read. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I don't believe saving people from drowning is a crime. Is that not plain on its face? -- Kendrick7 talk 15:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
And if that is ALL she did that might be a valid point. But her "notability" all stems form the same incident, her recuse of those people, her bringing them to Italy, her arrest her trail are all the same event, not separate ones. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I've never heard of her until coming across this AfD, but WP:BLP1E doesn't hinge on whether something's a crime - she performed an action and was charged for that action, which would make the crime and trial part of the same event, even if the crime isn't a crime. SportingFlyer T· C 16:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Very true, but as the original claim included such things as being arrested and charged it seemed it was best to address the issue as a crime. I could of course just as easily described wining a race or writing a book. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
While it might be true that you didn't hear about her until this AfD (nobody can be aware of everything), she has been (and still is!) in the news since 2013 (that is, even long before the Iuventa event in 2017). There are hundreds of top reliable sources showing an ongoing and lasting public interest clearly indicating notability per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and even WP:ANYBIO.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) (updated after having found even more evidence of a much earlier news coverage.) reply
  • Comment Unfortunately, the nominator now also nominated this article for deletion without waiting for (and possibly learn from) the outcome of the ongoing AfD of the closely related Carola Rackete article (by the same nominator). This is really bad style in a collaborative project. Please be more careful and do your homework WP:BEFORE nominating articles about notable subjects for deletion, as otherwise the time and energy of contributing editors is unnecessarily bound into avoidable discussions.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 20:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Don't be ridiculous, this is a clear WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer T· C 20:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I don't think it is a case of WP:BLP1E at all. It might be a case of WP:BIO1E, but with the given media coverage deep and lasting, the subject is relevant for our encyclopedia to have an article about her. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
wp:other is only an essay, but does reflect the fact that many do not think that because one article is notable that means that all similar topics must be notable. The Atlantic is water, so is my pond, but only one is notable. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
You must be getting me all wrong. I never said that we should have an article about her because we have an article about Carola Rackete, but because the topic Pia Klemp meets our notability criteria.
Also, I was not complaining about you nominating two unrelated articles in a row in general, but that you nominated two closely related articles in succession in a way indicating that you were not aware of the Pia Klemp article before and therefore would not have raised the AfD on the Pia Klemp article if I would not have added a link to that article to the Carola Rackete article. While this is not "forbidden" per se, it is bad style to do so before waiting for the outcome of your first AfD nomination, and because your had already been advised to do your homework WP:BEFORE. That behaviour is typical for agenda-driven people who just want to get rid of articles on certain topics as soon as possible instead of being interested in other opinions, learn a few bits every time, and work collaboratively on building an encyclopedia.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
And this is the last time I am going to reply to you, if you are just going to resort to emotive arguments about agendas and bias then I am not going to bother to respond. I do not think this person (or the other) are notable, end of story. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The problem is that our opinions are irrelevant in an AfD for as long as they are not based on guidelines. The question is not if you (or I) think the subject is notable, but if the criteria for notability in the guideline are fulfilled or not.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 10:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Matthiaspaul I am not saying these things don't happen. But the funny thing here is, Jugend Rettet was on AfD a few years ago. Would consider that political too?-- AntonHogervorst ( talk) 07:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, this happens and this causes huge damage to the project - not only wasting time in otherwise unnecessary discussions which could better be spent on article work (guess what, I was working on various other topics, but now am here to "keep" an article about a notable topic from being accidently deleted because of ignorance), but also in the destruction of the work of other editors, causing them to burn out, and many other editors seeing this never even trying to contribute substantially to the project. Yes, we do need to weed out junk topics, but we also must be careful to not delete notable topics.
Regarding your question, I haven't checked that old Jugend Rettet AfD being politically motivated or not. If it was and if that can be proved, the nominator should be sanctioned for it, because we must maintain a neutral point of view when working on the project.
However, I don't think that old nomination is related to these two nominations, so it is don't care here.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral I wrote Jugend Rettet by the way. My objection against the Pia Klemp article was more that the original text was not neutral. To use an ugly word: fan based. My humble opinion. I am having the same discussion in the German WP. To me it seems that people that do not like Salvini are now writing articles on ship captains that are in the news as a political statement. Soon you will have a proliferation of articles of any person getting in the news because someone wants to endorse the defiance of the NGOs against Salvini. Where does it stop? Nevertheless against a neutral lemma about Pia Klemp I would not have any objections.-- AntonHogervorst ( talk) 21:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
FWIW, AntonHogervorst, I wrote this article and have no idea who Salvini is. I wrote it to reflect the sources I had at hand; feel free to add others reflecting your point of view. The more the merrier I say. -- Kendrick7 talk 01:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Apologies. I believe you! Okay, if you only look at the information Pia Klemp is giving herself in interviews, you probably would get to something like that. I am following this issue for a few years. And to me it seems that the NGO now has started a media offensive. It makes a good head line too: captain being convicted for 20 years for saving drowning persons. But that is not the whole story. The investigations started in 2016 (well before Salvini actually) and the lawsuit in 2017. The actual conviction is getting closer, and now in 2019 NGO presents one example as their spokes person. But that spokes person is not that important (About 20 other people in the same situation), and the Italian side of the story is missed. By the way, there is one funny thing here. The lemma Jugend Rettet was actually on AfD two years ago.-- AntonHogervorst ( talk) 07:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Apology accepted and I appreciate you lending your knowledge here. Are you saying Klemp wasn't actually the captain of the ship at the time the ship was seized? Or that there are 20 other ship's captains involved in the same trial? Or just that her whole crew is also on trial? Maybe there should be one main article about this, but none of my sources went into enough depth to make that obvious. I didn't even know who Carola Rackete, another captain caught up in apparently the same sweep, was until yesterday and I doubt there are 18 more articles out there. These two seem to be the notable individuals on trial so far, and I think they both stand fine alone without needed to be merged into articles about their respective employers. -- Kendrick7 talk 15:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Kendrick7 Sorry for the late answer. I was preparing a job interview and helping my daughter with her study et cetera. The information is unfortunately for you in a few non English sources in the Jugend Rettet lemma. Basically it is like this that in juli/august 2018 about 20 people were informed that the Italians were starting procedures that would eventually lead to a trial. These are members of Jugend Rettet, but also members of other organizations.(Save the Children and Médecins Sans Frontières.) At the moment of the source they were 20. The sources are presently number 14, 15 and 16 in the lemma: "Migranti: Juventa, 20 avvisi di garanzia - Sicilia", "Mittelmeer: Italien ermittelt gegen Flüchtlingsretter" and "Italië stelt strafrechtelijk onderzoek in naar bemanning Duits reddingsschip". I am Dutch, I am fluent in English, German and Spanish. And because of the latter I can also easily read Italian. -- AntonHogervorst ( talk) 17:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Sorry, this really sounds too much of a conspiration theory to me. There are kind of "waves" in media coverage, but that's just normal.
However, if you think the "Italian side" is missing, feel free to add it. The way the German WP covers the various views on Carola Rackete might give you some clues how to do it and still maintain a neutral point of view - and thereby doing a service to our readers. We may like it or not, but their view should be described as well, so that our readers can draw their own opinion by comparing the different views. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Stop trying to cast aspersions as an argument to keep or delete. It is irrelevant what you think the political motivation of any opinion is. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Valid arguments must be based on our notability guidelines WP:N and WP:BIO. However, agenda-driven editing is not allowed, therefore a possible political motivation is not irrelevant to know when the offered opinions or behaviour are not backed up by guidelines, as they should.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
We also have wp:agf. As many have said, we did not even hear about her until this (or in my case another) AFD, and have no views on the politics. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
If I would not assume good faith (in the sense that I believe you think you are doing the right thing), I would not have reminded you of WP:BEFORE.
AGF works both ways. You stated that you did not know anything about the topic before you nominated the article for deletion. There is nothing wrong with not knowing anything about her, but there is a lot wrong with filing an article for AfD without knowing anything about it! It is mandantory to research a topic before nominating it. You even have been kindly reminded before the second nomination. But instead of being interested in the outcome of the first nomination (after all, your judgement could have been wrong, and it turned out that it actually was) and the opinions of the other editors, you somehow felt that you had a better judgement on notability than those working on the article (and knowing something about the topic) and so you filed the second AfD. Not a critical question on the talk page, not a notability/refimprove/merge tag, but you went straight to AfD. Did you put any trust in the integrity, competence and judgement of those who contributed to the article?
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 10:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Clearly notable enough now. -- Yann ( talk) 16:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I came here from Google after seeing the petition circulated on social media to research the situation before signing the petition. It doesn't mention Jugend Rettet, the petition, signed by 345,000+ people, talks about Pia. I was surprised to see the page flagged for deletion and feel it should be kept and where possible expanded. - Victoria, anon user, 4/7/2019
  • Merge to Jugend Rettet. BLP1E seems to apply right now with arrest/one mission, and I don't put much weight on the prizes counting for notability - as one is primary (non-independent) source and the other in passing. Widefox; talk 19:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
That's a strawman - we are discussing the notability of Pia Klemp, not that of potential articles about the awards she received. The provided sources just prove the fact that she did receive these awards, and for this purpose, primary sources are perfectly fine as are passing mentionings (per WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:BASIC).
Further, providing nice sources is something for a normal article improvement process, not something to establish or deny notability at AfD. This is explicitly ruled out in WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST, both part of the relevant notability guideline.
In either case, the sources were just taken from the German WP (where they are found to be good enough). There are more sources, including secondary or even tertiary ones, which can be used to prove that information as well.
Now, having verified that she received these awards, what is relevant for our discussion here is WP:ANYBIO #1. Both awards are certainly not Nobel prizes, but they can't be ignored either (and for one of them we even have an article in the German WP), and there are two of them. And WP:ANYBIO works in addition to WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, which already establish notability, anyway.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 10:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply
As a courtesy I spent five minutes of my weekend to search for and add a bunch of additional secondary and tertiary sources discussing her awards. I just wonder why you did not find these sources...
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 00:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Matthiaspaul even your own words ..even films have been produced about her, and she has received awards "films" aren't in the article so that's factually incorrect, primary sources don't count for notability per policy, and the awards seem minor. 1E dominates, so I stand by my !vote. You should be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON and let others comment. Widefox; talk 01:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I hope you don't mind if I reply still - this is really meant as a constructive exchange of arguments based on our guidelines and the weighting of the various criteria at hands.
Although over here "films" are not restricted to movies but include TV productions, thanks for improving my wording, I really appreciate it.
You are also right about primary sources and notability, but the notability of Pia Klemp does not depend on the notability of awards she received, and primary sources are fine to prove simple facts. The sources do have an influence on the weight we can put on WP:ANYBIO, though. I take your point that it is debatable how "huge" these awards are - this is ultimately up to individual interpretation. At least I have meanwhile found and added secondary sources describing these awards as "renowned" and "famous", but there are certainly more important awards.
I cannot, however, at all agree with you regarding 1E and have added a bunch of sources demonstrating her media coverage since 2013 (when she was still working for Sea Shepherd), that is, long before the Iuventa event in 2017. There is also media coverage of her various missions with Sea-Watch 3 in 2018, and some other activities. The original article stub did not include all these details, but that's exactly why we are required to research a topic before voting at AfD because of WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST. To me, this evidence makes it impossible to see this as a 1E bio and I can't follow you there, but I will accept that you have a different opinion. Thanks.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 20:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Entirely missing my point - being interviewed on TV or radio are primary (non-independent) sources, the assertion of notability comes from recent news hence why and how this fails WP:N per BLP1E as several !votes state. Eliminate what doesn't count and that's it BLP1E. it fails to meet any of WP:ANYBIO 1. awards not "well-known and significant" 2. "enduring historical record" not obvious, more NOTNEWS 3. No. Widefox; talk 23:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I had never heard of this person until a link to the article was added to a navbox that I watch. The article could do with some cleanup to make it more neutral and could be expanded with other content, but AfD is not for cleanup. A look through the 22 references in the article convinces me that she does meet WP:GNG and that BLP1E does not apply. This is not about one event, it is about a series of events that have all come to a head and appears to be an issue that will go on for some time. The delete/merge comments above don't convince me that either of those options is applicable so I believe the article should be kept and hopefully improved. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I have brought forward most of my argumentation further above already, so I will only summarize it here:
We have seen major coverage of Pia Klemp in hundreds of secondary (sometimes even tertiary) WP:RS internationally. The public interest in her activities seems to have started in 2013, and it is ongoing and growing up to the present. The coverage is not centered around a single event (Iuventa) only, but includes earlier and later events with other ships and organizations as well, it is not even limited to "ship related" stuff only. This very clearly establishes notability per all criteria of WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, and at the same time it rules out the idea of merging into another topic per WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E.
In addition, she has written two novels, has been featured as sole or major participant in at least four TV productions, she received two human rights awards, a song was written about her, a petition was started (with more than 350,000 participants), and more. I therefore also see several criteria of WP:ANYBIO fulfilled. Finally, Wikipedians in other languages have created articles about here as well - while the different language entities have slightly different rules, this might still give us another clue on her encyclopedic relevance.
The original stub article did not reveal all this and therefore might have (although should not have) misled some earlier voters to see this as a 1E bio to be merged into another topic. To me, this is an obvious case for having a full blown article about her, and the more I research the topic the more evidence I find supporting this.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 20:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Which criteria of ANYBIO are fulfilled? all 1. 2. 3. are not by my judgement above, so can you reason per policy, especially as you've asserted it several times and asserted others have not linked their !vote to policy, which I don't believe you've reasoned per your own dismissal of others, which I find unconvincing. You've said above ANYBIO 1. is not obviously fulfilled. Widefox; talk 23:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
WP:ANYBIO is an additional test which can indicate notability even if WP:GNG or WP:BASIC would not be fulfilled, which however they are. WP:ANYBIO reads People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards, and in there #1 reads The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, which I see as being fulfilled. I agree that neither of these awards is in the Nobel price region, but there's more between heaven and earth than 0 and 1, and what can be regarded as "well-known" and "significant" is ultimately a matter of perspective. One clue on significance is that the German WP has an article on one of these awards. Another clue can be descriptions in secondary sources describing them as "renowned" or "famous". Also, Klemp received two awards, not only one. Summing this all up, I see the criterium more than fulfilled as a whole.
WP:ANYBIO #2 reads The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. If you think about what could be a "widely recognized contribution" or "enduring record" in the field of sea rescueing, having saved thousands of lifes is quite an achievement I would think (well, even regardless of field). We have an abundant amount of sources discussing this, so it is obviously widely recognized and also seen as important by many. Therefore, I see this criterium fulfilled as well.
WP:ANYBIO #3 is obviously not fulfilled, but doesn't need to be for WP:ANYBIO to be fulfilled in general (any of, not all of).
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 00:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
1. n not well known awards are not "a well-known and significant award or honor" . It really is that simple, especially when n=2.
2. "enduring historical record" - how exactly can that be asserted as it's current news?! See WP:10YT. Widefox; talk 19:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Ad 1) The guideline is clearly meant in a cumulative way, otherwise there would be no point to allow counting award nominations (that is, not even received awards) as well. Also per guideline, if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Further, as already discussed, perceived importance of awards is relative - there are people who know them well enough to write articles (outside and inside of WP) about them, and who do find them significant as well. So, applying a multiplicative zero here rather than a cumulative sum is trying to make a point by interpreting the guideline by letter with force, not by its spirit.
Ad 2) By looking at the past. What is recorded as historically enduring differs somewhat between cultures and times, but not fundamentally. Acts of saving lifes, if public, are (and have been) remembered in most any civilization. Sometimes it takes a while to be recognized, like in the Paul Grüninger case, sometimes it is recognized immediately. Either way, most of the events are at least a year old from 2018, with some even going back to 2013. Even though there are also some new "news", as a whole this is not "breaking news" any more - we meanwhile even have tertiary sources discussing other sources or putting past events into context and perspective of time as well. This is obviously lasting relevance. If we couldn't start writing about such topics now, we couldn't address most recent events in Wikipedia at all.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 11:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Many more details and source added (from primary to tertiary). It turned out there are many more TV and radio features than originally assumed (and even one true cinema film, although this one is Iuventa-centered only). There are meanwhile also books devoting paragraphs or chapters to Klemp.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 11:05, 9 July 2019 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pia_Klemp&oldid=905528480"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. As to whether to keep or merge. But there's consensus to not delete. Sandstein 18:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Pia Klemp

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Pia Klemp (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notable for only one event. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Merge with Jugend Rettet for the moment. There's not much room to expand the article just yet. -- Luk talk 14:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Yep seems a good option. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Actually, there is quite a lot to add about her, some of which can be translated from the articles in the other Wikipedias, but there are also many other sources. She has received major and ongoing coverage in the media, even films have been produced about her, and she has received awards. Notability criteria for an article about her, not only about the main event or the organization, are clearly given per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 20:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Yes, but why? Is she more special than the 20 other people that are in the same situation? I have the idea that she is the best suited for public relations and therefo pushed forward in a media offensive now the crew members really can be convicted for human trafficking. In all that information about Pia Klemp there actually is no new data about the trial that has been going on since 2017.-- AntonHogervorst ( talk) 21:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I think you are making many assumptions we really should not make - "pushed forward"? "media offensive"? This sounds way too much of a conspiration theory to me.
Trying to answer your question, I don't know if there are 20 other people in the same situation, but it is a strawman argument, anyway - we don't have 20 other articles about those other people, and even if we had, this is irrelevant in a deletion discussion. The only argument that counts is notability - which can be either demonstrated by a fulfilled catalog of criteria or not. If we want an article about Pia Klemp, but she does not meet our notability criteria, we won't have an article. Likewise, if someone does not want an article about her, but she meets the notability criteria, we will have an article about her no matter what (given that someone will write one).
And if there would be 20 other people meeting our notability criteria, we can have 20 articles about them. The number of articles is don't care, because WP:NOTPAPER. What counts is notability. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Matthiaspaul: I read the german wikipedia entry and there's not much more, most of it revolves around the incident. I didn't check the other languages so maybe I missed something. -- Luk talk 13:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Thanks for checking the German Wikipedia, something that everyone should have done before casting a vote in this discussion, but unfortunately very few actually did.
Although I did not plan to work on the article and have no time for it right now, I have meanwhile added some stuff from the German WP to clearly demonstrate notability per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO (awards, feature-length films). There would be a lot more to add to the actual biography, but this will have to wait until later.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Like: "On 4 April 2019 Westdeutscher Rundfunk broadcast an 8-minute documentary about Klemp." WDR is a regional German channel, 8 minutes documentary. That is one of the most notable things about her? -- AntonHogervorst ( talk) 17:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Westdeutscher Rundfunk (WDR) is, by number of employees, the second-largest public-service broadcaster in Europe after the BBC, and the largest supplier within the German ARD network. In addition to national TV and radio productions, they produce one regional TV and six radio channels for the state of North-Rhine-Westphalia. WDR is among Germany's top sources for independent quality journalism. To get their time is a clear sign of a huge public interest in the topic indicating notability. Also, this is only one out of several broadcasts I listed after searching for a few minutes, there are more...
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 00:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 14:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 14:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 14:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as creator of the English version of the article; saving the lives of a thousand people and being arrested and tried for it is more than one event. Whether she ends up being convicted or not will be yet another event, so this AfD seems quite overeager -- Kendrick7 talk 15:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Would you care to explain why this isn't multiple events? -- Kendrick7 talk 01:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Kendrick7: How am I supposed to make that argument when I have no idea what the second event even is? SportingFlyer T· C 02:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
They do above, they are saying that committing a crime, being caught for the crime, being tried for the crime, and being sentenced for the crime are all separate events. Rather then being part of the same event (in effect), WP:PERP may be worth a read. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I don't believe saving people from drowning is a crime. Is that not plain on its face? -- Kendrick7 talk 15:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
And if that is ALL she did that might be a valid point. But her "notability" all stems form the same incident, her recuse of those people, her bringing them to Italy, her arrest her trail are all the same event, not separate ones. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I've never heard of her until coming across this AfD, but WP:BLP1E doesn't hinge on whether something's a crime - she performed an action and was charged for that action, which would make the crime and trial part of the same event, even if the crime isn't a crime. SportingFlyer T· C 16:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Very true, but as the original claim included such things as being arrested and charged it seemed it was best to address the issue as a crime. I could of course just as easily described wining a race or writing a book. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
While it might be true that you didn't hear about her until this AfD (nobody can be aware of everything), she has been (and still is!) in the news since 2013 (that is, even long before the Iuventa event in 2017). There are hundreds of top reliable sources showing an ongoing and lasting public interest clearly indicating notability per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and even WP:ANYBIO.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) (updated after having found even more evidence of a much earlier news coverage.) reply
  • Comment Unfortunately, the nominator now also nominated this article for deletion without waiting for (and possibly learn from) the outcome of the ongoing AfD of the closely related Carola Rackete article (by the same nominator). This is really bad style in a collaborative project. Please be more careful and do your homework WP:BEFORE nominating articles about notable subjects for deletion, as otherwise the time and energy of contributing editors is unnecessarily bound into avoidable discussions.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 20:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Don't be ridiculous, this is a clear WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer T· C 20:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I don't think it is a case of WP:BLP1E at all. It might be a case of WP:BIO1E, but with the given media coverage deep and lasting, the subject is relevant for our encyclopedia to have an article about her. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
wp:other is only an essay, but does reflect the fact that many do not think that because one article is notable that means that all similar topics must be notable. The Atlantic is water, so is my pond, but only one is notable. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
You must be getting me all wrong. I never said that we should have an article about her because we have an article about Carola Rackete, but because the topic Pia Klemp meets our notability criteria.
Also, I was not complaining about you nominating two unrelated articles in a row in general, but that you nominated two closely related articles in succession in a way indicating that you were not aware of the Pia Klemp article before and therefore would not have raised the AfD on the Pia Klemp article if I would not have added a link to that article to the Carola Rackete article. While this is not "forbidden" per se, it is bad style to do so before waiting for the outcome of your first AfD nomination, and because your had already been advised to do your homework WP:BEFORE. That behaviour is typical for agenda-driven people who just want to get rid of articles on certain topics as soon as possible instead of being interested in other opinions, learn a few bits every time, and work collaboratively on building an encyclopedia.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
And this is the last time I am going to reply to you, if you are just going to resort to emotive arguments about agendas and bias then I am not going to bother to respond. I do not think this person (or the other) are notable, end of story. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The problem is that our opinions are irrelevant in an AfD for as long as they are not based on guidelines. The question is not if you (or I) think the subject is notable, but if the criteria for notability in the guideline are fulfilled or not.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 10:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Matthiaspaul I am not saying these things don't happen. But the funny thing here is, Jugend Rettet was on AfD a few years ago. Would consider that political too?-- AntonHogervorst ( talk) 07:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, this happens and this causes huge damage to the project - not only wasting time in otherwise unnecessary discussions which could better be spent on article work (guess what, I was working on various other topics, but now am here to "keep" an article about a notable topic from being accidently deleted because of ignorance), but also in the destruction of the work of other editors, causing them to burn out, and many other editors seeing this never even trying to contribute substantially to the project. Yes, we do need to weed out junk topics, but we also must be careful to not delete notable topics.
Regarding your question, I haven't checked that old Jugend Rettet AfD being politically motivated or not. If it was and if that can be proved, the nominator should be sanctioned for it, because we must maintain a neutral point of view when working on the project.
However, I don't think that old nomination is related to these two nominations, so it is don't care here.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral I wrote Jugend Rettet by the way. My objection against the Pia Klemp article was more that the original text was not neutral. To use an ugly word: fan based. My humble opinion. I am having the same discussion in the German WP. To me it seems that people that do not like Salvini are now writing articles on ship captains that are in the news as a political statement. Soon you will have a proliferation of articles of any person getting in the news because someone wants to endorse the defiance of the NGOs against Salvini. Where does it stop? Nevertheless against a neutral lemma about Pia Klemp I would not have any objections.-- AntonHogervorst ( talk) 21:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
FWIW, AntonHogervorst, I wrote this article and have no idea who Salvini is. I wrote it to reflect the sources I had at hand; feel free to add others reflecting your point of view. The more the merrier I say. -- Kendrick7 talk 01:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Apologies. I believe you! Okay, if you only look at the information Pia Klemp is giving herself in interviews, you probably would get to something like that. I am following this issue for a few years. And to me it seems that the NGO now has started a media offensive. It makes a good head line too: captain being convicted for 20 years for saving drowning persons. But that is not the whole story. The investigations started in 2016 (well before Salvini actually) and the lawsuit in 2017. The actual conviction is getting closer, and now in 2019 NGO presents one example as their spokes person. But that spokes person is not that important (About 20 other people in the same situation), and the Italian side of the story is missed. By the way, there is one funny thing here. The lemma Jugend Rettet was actually on AfD two years ago.-- AntonHogervorst ( talk) 07:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Apology accepted and I appreciate you lending your knowledge here. Are you saying Klemp wasn't actually the captain of the ship at the time the ship was seized? Or that there are 20 other ship's captains involved in the same trial? Or just that her whole crew is also on trial? Maybe there should be one main article about this, but none of my sources went into enough depth to make that obvious. I didn't even know who Carola Rackete, another captain caught up in apparently the same sweep, was until yesterday and I doubt there are 18 more articles out there. These two seem to be the notable individuals on trial so far, and I think they both stand fine alone without needed to be merged into articles about their respective employers. -- Kendrick7 talk 15:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Kendrick7 Sorry for the late answer. I was preparing a job interview and helping my daughter with her study et cetera. The information is unfortunately for you in a few non English sources in the Jugend Rettet lemma. Basically it is like this that in juli/august 2018 about 20 people were informed that the Italians were starting procedures that would eventually lead to a trial. These are members of Jugend Rettet, but also members of other organizations.(Save the Children and Médecins Sans Frontières.) At the moment of the source they were 20. The sources are presently number 14, 15 and 16 in the lemma: "Migranti: Juventa, 20 avvisi di garanzia - Sicilia", "Mittelmeer: Italien ermittelt gegen Flüchtlingsretter" and "Italië stelt strafrechtelijk onderzoek in naar bemanning Duits reddingsschip". I am Dutch, I am fluent in English, German and Spanish. And because of the latter I can also easily read Italian. -- AntonHogervorst ( talk) 17:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Sorry, this really sounds too much of a conspiration theory to me. There are kind of "waves" in media coverage, but that's just normal.
However, if you think the "Italian side" is missing, feel free to add it. The way the German WP covers the various views on Carola Rackete might give you some clues how to do it and still maintain a neutral point of view - and thereby doing a service to our readers. We may like it or not, but their view should be described as well, so that our readers can draw their own opinion by comparing the different views. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Stop trying to cast aspersions as an argument to keep or delete. It is irrelevant what you think the political motivation of any opinion is. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Valid arguments must be based on our notability guidelines WP:N and WP:BIO. However, agenda-driven editing is not allowed, therefore a possible political motivation is not irrelevant to know when the offered opinions or behaviour are not backed up by guidelines, as they should.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
We also have wp:agf. As many have said, we did not even hear about her until this (or in my case another) AFD, and have no views on the politics. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
If I would not assume good faith (in the sense that I believe you think you are doing the right thing), I would not have reminded you of WP:BEFORE.
AGF works both ways. You stated that you did not know anything about the topic before you nominated the article for deletion. There is nothing wrong with not knowing anything about her, but there is a lot wrong with filing an article for AfD without knowing anything about it! It is mandantory to research a topic before nominating it. You even have been kindly reminded before the second nomination. But instead of being interested in the outcome of the first nomination (after all, your judgement could have been wrong, and it turned out that it actually was) and the opinions of the other editors, you somehow felt that you had a better judgement on notability than those working on the article (and knowing something about the topic) and so you filed the second AfD. Not a critical question on the talk page, not a notability/refimprove/merge tag, but you went straight to AfD. Did you put any trust in the integrity, competence and judgement of those who contributed to the article?
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 10:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Clearly notable enough now. -- Yann ( talk) 16:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I came here from Google after seeing the petition circulated on social media to research the situation before signing the petition. It doesn't mention Jugend Rettet, the petition, signed by 345,000+ people, talks about Pia. I was surprised to see the page flagged for deletion and feel it should be kept and where possible expanded. - Victoria, anon user, 4/7/2019
  • Merge to Jugend Rettet. BLP1E seems to apply right now with arrest/one mission, and I don't put much weight on the prizes counting for notability - as one is primary (non-independent) source and the other in passing. Widefox; talk 19:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
That's a strawman - we are discussing the notability of Pia Klemp, not that of potential articles about the awards she received. The provided sources just prove the fact that she did receive these awards, and for this purpose, primary sources are perfectly fine as are passing mentionings (per WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:BASIC).
Further, providing nice sources is something for a normal article improvement process, not something to establish or deny notability at AfD. This is explicitly ruled out in WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST, both part of the relevant notability guideline.
In either case, the sources were just taken from the German WP (where they are found to be good enough). There are more sources, including secondary or even tertiary ones, which can be used to prove that information as well.
Now, having verified that she received these awards, what is relevant for our discussion here is WP:ANYBIO #1. Both awards are certainly not Nobel prizes, but they can't be ignored either (and for one of them we even have an article in the German WP), and there are two of them. And WP:ANYBIO works in addition to WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, which already establish notability, anyway.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 10:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply
As a courtesy I spent five minutes of my weekend to search for and add a bunch of additional secondary and tertiary sources discussing her awards. I just wonder why you did not find these sources...
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 00:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Matthiaspaul even your own words ..even films have been produced about her, and she has received awards "films" aren't in the article so that's factually incorrect, primary sources don't count for notability per policy, and the awards seem minor. 1E dominates, so I stand by my !vote. You should be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON and let others comment. Widefox; talk 01:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I hope you don't mind if I reply still - this is really meant as a constructive exchange of arguments based on our guidelines and the weighting of the various criteria at hands.
Although over here "films" are not restricted to movies but include TV productions, thanks for improving my wording, I really appreciate it.
You are also right about primary sources and notability, but the notability of Pia Klemp does not depend on the notability of awards she received, and primary sources are fine to prove simple facts. The sources do have an influence on the weight we can put on WP:ANYBIO, though. I take your point that it is debatable how "huge" these awards are - this is ultimately up to individual interpretation. At least I have meanwhile found and added secondary sources describing these awards as "renowned" and "famous", but there are certainly more important awards.
I cannot, however, at all agree with you regarding 1E and have added a bunch of sources demonstrating her media coverage since 2013 (when she was still working for Sea Shepherd), that is, long before the Iuventa event in 2017. There is also media coverage of her various missions with Sea-Watch 3 in 2018, and some other activities. The original article stub did not include all these details, but that's exactly why we are required to research a topic before voting at AfD because of WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST. To me, this evidence makes it impossible to see this as a 1E bio and I can't follow you there, but I will accept that you have a different opinion. Thanks.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 20:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Entirely missing my point - being interviewed on TV or radio are primary (non-independent) sources, the assertion of notability comes from recent news hence why and how this fails WP:N per BLP1E as several !votes state. Eliminate what doesn't count and that's it BLP1E. it fails to meet any of WP:ANYBIO 1. awards not "well-known and significant" 2. "enduring historical record" not obvious, more NOTNEWS 3. No. Widefox; talk 23:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I had never heard of this person until a link to the article was added to a navbox that I watch. The article could do with some cleanup to make it more neutral and could be expanded with other content, but AfD is not for cleanup. A look through the 22 references in the article convinces me that she does meet WP:GNG and that BLP1E does not apply. This is not about one event, it is about a series of events that have all come to a head and appears to be an issue that will go on for some time. The delete/merge comments above don't convince me that either of those options is applicable so I believe the article should be kept and hopefully improved. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I have brought forward most of my argumentation further above already, so I will only summarize it here:
We have seen major coverage of Pia Klemp in hundreds of secondary (sometimes even tertiary) WP:RS internationally. The public interest in her activities seems to have started in 2013, and it is ongoing and growing up to the present. The coverage is not centered around a single event (Iuventa) only, but includes earlier and later events with other ships and organizations as well, it is not even limited to "ship related" stuff only. This very clearly establishes notability per all criteria of WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, and at the same time it rules out the idea of merging into another topic per WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E.
In addition, she has written two novels, has been featured as sole or major participant in at least four TV productions, she received two human rights awards, a song was written about her, a petition was started (with more than 350,000 participants), and more. I therefore also see several criteria of WP:ANYBIO fulfilled. Finally, Wikipedians in other languages have created articles about here as well - while the different language entities have slightly different rules, this might still give us another clue on her encyclopedic relevance.
The original stub article did not reveal all this and therefore might have (although should not have) misled some earlier voters to see this as a 1E bio to be merged into another topic. To me, this is an obvious case for having a full blown article about her, and the more I research the topic the more evidence I find supporting this.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 20:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Which criteria of ANYBIO are fulfilled? all 1. 2. 3. are not by my judgement above, so can you reason per policy, especially as you've asserted it several times and asserted others have not linked their !vote to policy, which I don't believe you've reasoned per your own dismissal of others, which I find unconvincing. You've said above ANYBIO 1. is not obviously fulfilled. Widefox; talk 23:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
WP:ANYBIO is an additional test which can indicate notability even if WP:GNG or WP:BASIC would not be fulfilled, which however they are. WP:ANYBIO reads People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards, and in there #1 reads The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, which I see as being fulfilled. I agree that neither of these awards is in the Nobel price region, but there's more between heaven and earth than 0 and 1, and what can be regarded as "well-known" and "significant" is ultimately a matter of perspective. One clue on significance is that the German WP has an article on one of these awards. Another clue can be descriptions in secondary sources describing them as "renowned" or "famous". Also, Klemp received two awards, not only one. Summing this all up, I see the criterium more than fulfilled as a whole.
WP:ANYBIO #2 reads The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. If you think about what could be a "widely recognized contribution" or "enduring record" in the field of sea rescueing, having saved thousands of lifes is quite an achievement I would think (well, even regardless of field). We have an abundant amount of sources discussing this, so it is obviously widely recognized and also seen as important by many. Therefore, I see this criterium fulfilled as well.
WP:ANYBIO #3 is obviously not fulfilled, but doesn't need to be for WP:ANYBIO to be fulfilled in general (any of, not all of).
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 00:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
1. n not well known awards are not "a well-known and significant award or honor" . It really is that simple, especially when n=2.
2. "enduring historical record" - how exactly can that be asserted as it's current news?! See WP:10YT. Widefox; talk 19:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Ad 1) The guideline is clearly meant in a cumulative way, otherwise there would be no point to allow counting award nominations (that is, not even received awards) as well. Also per guideline, if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Further, as already discussed, perceived importance of awards is relative - there are people who know them well enough to write articles (outside and inside of WP) about them, and who do find them significant as well. So, applying a multiplicative zero here rather than a cumulative sum is trying to make a point by interpreting the guideline by letter with force, not by its spirit.
Ad 2) By looking at the past. What is recorded as historically enduring differs somewhat between cultures and times, but not fundamentally. Acts of saving lifes, if public, are (and have been) remembered in most any civilization. Sometimes it takes a while to be recognized, like in the Paul Grüninger case, sometimes it is recognized immediately. Either way, most of the events are at least a year old from 2018, with some even going back to 2013. Even though there are also some new "news", as a whole this is not "breaking news" any more - we meanwhile even have tertiary sources discussing other sources or putting past events into context and perspective of time as well. This is obviously lasting relevance. If we couldn't start writing about such topics now, we couldn't address most recent events in Wikipedia at all.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 11:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Many more details and source added (from primary to tertiary). It turned out there are many more TV and radio features than originally assumed (and even one true cinema film, although this one is Iuventa-centered only). There are meanwhile also books devoting paragraphs or chapters to Klemp.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 11:05, 9 July 2019 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pia_Klemp&oldid=905528480"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE