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 germanwings_Flight_9525. snow. We have a clear consensus not to have an article on libitiz and a redirect to the actual article is customary. Spartaz Humbug! 16:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Lubitz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Andreas Lubitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per:

  1. WP:BLP1E - " We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three [listed] conditions is met" All 3 conditions are met. "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." 2 weeks later, coverage in WP:RS has mostly ended. BLP policy applies here because of WP:BDP. "Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime"
  2. WP:CRIME - "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." The existing article is Germanwings Flight 9525.

Also see arguments here: Talk:Germanwings_Flight_9525#Merge_from_Andreas_Lubitz. All important information has been merged. I am not opposed to making this a redirect following consensus. Andreas Lubitz's only notability is for the Germanwings Flight 9525 crash which has had its own article since before this one. 2 AfDs have been done already on this article. The first was withdrawn by nominator (with a clear intent to later re-nominate) 5 hours after nomination without allowing for a consensus to form, and the second was procedural closed because it was too recent from the end of the first one. It has now been 2 1/2 weeks, I ask that we allow the discussion to take its course. ― Padenton|✉   01:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): If you disagree with a wikipedia policy, the customary place to dispute it is WP:VPP. AfD arguments should be based on wikipedia policy. ― Padenton|✉   03:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The key factor in your argument is contentious or questionable material about the dead. Nothing in the article is "contentious or questionable material" to award a two year extension of the rights of living people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONTENTFORK - "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided."
Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GuzzyG: You skipped over the rest of the 'significant role ....' paragraph. It goes on to say "The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Later in the WP:CRIME section, it also says " Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Heavy coverage has already dropped off 2 weeks after the incident. ― Padenton|✉   18:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Padenton: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3036565/Lufthansa-face-corporate-manslaughter-charges-Germanwings-disaster-psychiatrists-allowed-suicidal-pilot-return-cockpit.html http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/germanwings-disaster-europe-force-germany-change-privacy-laws-after-suicide-crash-1496004 What evidence is it going to magically stop as soon as legal action is very likely to be taken? How would it improve the encyclopedia if a reader wants to read about his parapsychology and gets redirected to an article about the crash and not his bio where that information would be in the right place, the bio might be badly written but that is not a reason to delete, that kind of information is not in the flight article anyway. Rare extreme cases like this people will linger in people's minds and thus is a viable encyclopedic entry for the psychology and criminology communities, like i must repeat this has only happened one other time and will likely not happen again due to new laws pushed through because of this incident. He fits WP:PERP number 2 perfectly anyway "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy" which considering it is only the 2nd confirmed suicide-by-pilot with over 100 casualties, yes it is, also this "...devotes significant attention to the individual's role" which considering his psychopathology is brought up he fits that too! GuzzyG (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GuzzyG: That people want to read about his parapsychology is not a reason to keep it. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. This is not a rare or extreme case in any way, shape, or form, and there is no evidence supporting an article for the sake of the psychology and criminology communities. When there are academic papers published in journals, then you can claim it is important for the psychology and criminology communities. All of your claims fail WP:TOOSOON. "this has only happened one other time" is unsourced. "will likely not happen again due to new laws pushed through because of this incident." is WP:CRYSTALBALL, and dubious. Also, there are no laws pushed through, only policies (and only in a handful of countries). The motivation for the crime or execution of the crime is not unusual or noteworthy. The motivation was suicide, which is even more common than homicide in most developed countries. The execution of the crime is not unusual in any way. He's a pilot. He committed suicide. He took people with him. Nothing unusual or noteworthy in that. Wikipedia is not a memorial (WP:MEMORIAL). There is no significant attention to the individual's role. Significant attention requires historical significance of the event. Standard breaking news coverage of an incident directly following it is not significant attention. You can tell as the news reports have mostly stopped a week after the incident. ― Padenton|✉   19:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Padenton: "He's a pilot. He committed suicide. He took people with him. Nothing unusual or noteworthy in that." Source me three suicide attacks with over 100 casualties on a commercial flight (Not including 9/11), good luck. GuzzyG (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GuzzyG: Explain to me how the body count makes it 'unusual.' ― Padenton|✉   19:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)w[reply]
Because the rest are with small single pilot deaths, the best thing to say would be three commercial flights. GuzzyG (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If GNG trumped the above, the above wouldn't be Wikipedia policy.... GNG also requires that the subject is not excluded by WP:What Wikipedia is not (stated in the lead), which it is, here: WP:NOTWHOSWHO. It also says in WWIN that biographical articles are required to meet the notability requirements in WP:Notability (people) and it says that right here: WP:NOTMEMORIAL. So GNG actually doesn't trump any of the above. ― Padenton|✉   19:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, " means he passes whos who, with his psychopathology coverage, memorial is passed unless you consider stuff like us holding a memorial for Hitler and other criminals, that guideline was meant for editors dead friends and family. GuzzyG (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GuzzyG: I knew we'd reach Hitler eventually. WP:GODWIN always comes through in the end. On another note, do you want to rethink your claim that it's unusual for someone diagnosed with depression to commit suicide? ― Padenton|✉   14:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You brought him up when you erroneously suggested our articles on people are memorials like we are findagrave.com, i have asked you to cite 3 people committing suicide by bringing down a commercial plane not including 9/11 and i see that you have failed, this is not another Suicide of Amanda Todd this is a muder-suicide with 150 fatalities, it is thus, very rare by definition. The man might be heinous but he is a notable heinous man, he has got worldwide coverage on 6 continent and his actions have long lasting policy changes, i rest my case, but id love for you to cite more then 3 non-911 confirmed commercial plane suicides since they are so common to you. GuzzyG (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes third nomination within a small amount of time. In which the first two ended in a definite Keep. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue (as said above). 1st was withdrawn by nominator 5 hours after nomination, 2nd was a procedural close. Neither ended in 'a definite keep'.― Padenton|✉   14:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my humble opinion, there's no need to counter every person who missed an earlier point. A decent closer can figure it out, unless we've added so much clutter that that becomes impossible. Just a comment from the cheap seats, carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not reason for deletion, the close was incorrect, WP:BIO1E is actually the reason this passes, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. There has always been large confusion regarding ONEEVENT, people often misinterpret this guideline as a means to delete people involved in notable events when in actuality it is a reason to retain. Valoem talk contrib 17:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking him here to vote one way or another and this comment was not intended as in favor or against deletion. I pinged him so that he could comment himself on what you are alleging. If you feel you must challenge his closing, the proper steps to do so are here: Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures. ― Padenton|✉   17:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I took account of both sides of the argument. As I said, it is a narrow thing. A merge is not a deletion. Time can change things - maybe one day there will be a published biography, for example, as there is for people like Lee Harvey Oswald. For now, the arguments relating to basic human decency and proper sensitivity to difficult issues of mental illness, seem to me to outweigh those based on the volume of (rather prurient) media coverage. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. A merge is not a deletion, and if sufficient information arrives to generate sufficient content to make a stand-alone article, it can be split out again. But at the moment, there not really much to tell about Lubitz; a troubled and selfish man, a fit of pique, a suicide. A subsection in the main article about the crash is sufficient. -- The Anome (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2015 (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.
Category