Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Lubitz


 * 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   keep. Withdrawn by nominator — foxj 15:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Andreas Lubitz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All relevant details on this man can be reasonably and in due weight be discussed on the article of the accident &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator: No consensus can likely be reached while this remains in the news. Bringing it up when we move to the inevitable next circle of tragedy may be better. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Very few information.
 * Strong keep As per WP:Oneevent, when a significant event occurs, and someone is a significant participant in that event, a separate article is usually appropriate. That is certainly the case here. Other cases: Timothy McVeigh, Anders Behring Breivik and Christa McAuliffe, all known for single events. I strong !vote to keep this article, and lets let it develop. Juneau Mike (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I see on the accident's page, it is not officially confirmed that he did this, or that he did it deliberately. Could be a case of waiting &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * McVeigh and Breivik also had notable trials. McAuliffe was notable for going aboard the shuttle before it exploded. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 27.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 10:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Hopefully once all these tags have gone cluttering the page we can actually get down to the task of improving the article. Ulcerspar12 (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: subject of massive media attention, clearly meets the notability criteria. WP:ONEEVENT has an explicit exception for just this type of case: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." What makes this event particularly significant is the relationship of pilot mental health to air safety, and the details of his health and personality are highly relevant to the matter. -- Impsswoon (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge. Compare with EgyptAir Flight 990, SilkAir Flight 185 or even Charlie Hebdo shooting, where the perpetrators are notable for nothing except the event. McVeigh & Breivik are different because there is much more known history, publication of political ideology, trials, sentencing etc. ed g2s &bull; talk 11:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Well, we are just learning about Lubitz. Current consensus among relevant law enforcement is that he committed this act. If the original "newpage" template had been adhered to, additional notability would have been established. But another editor jumped the gun and began an AfD before that new page process had even played out for a few hours. In reference to your comment, it is clear there would be neither a McVeigh page here, nor a Breivik page, had they not committed acts of terrorism. Juneau Mike (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The tag refers to the quality of the article, not general notability. If I were deleting it for its formatting, voice etc., I would be jumping the gun. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * With sincere credit given to your very prolific and good faith edits here on Wikipedia, which are well established, where you jumped the gun was starting an AfD discussion on a brand new article that for less than 3 hours had included the "newpage" template. A mere 12 or 24 hours of good faith editing by multiple editors would have established this pages position and related rankings as notable. You starting an AfD on an article still in the new page process seemed very hasty. I say all of this with respect, as you are fantastic editor. Despite our one disagreement here, I respect you and your contributions greatly. Juneau Mike (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge Anything we ever learn about this guy is going to be in the context of that one event. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - As sources begin to characterize him as a mass murderer, , the subject is in the McVeigh realm. Just let the article stand now, otherwise we'll just be back here in 2-3 weeks, there's no sense in maintaining bureaucracy for the sake of the bureaucracy. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge for now. Maybe we'll learn more about him in the coming weeks that warrants a longer, more complete article. But now, this article shows that he is famous for just one thing as it is. McVeigh and Breivik had trials, Lubitz the SilkAir Pilot, the EgyptAir pilot, and other examples died right when they did their deed. We haven't determined that his story is more "worthy" of an article than the others. SOXROX (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep as per current Wikipedia practice. There are articles for Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Anders Behring Breivik, Timothy McVeigh and several other cases where both a mass-murderer and the actual mass-murder both have an article. I don't see any difference between them and Lubitz.Jeppiz (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The notable aftermath. Lubitz has none. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And they were political terrorists, so their history is part of their motives. In this case it's likely we'll never know much about the motive. As noted above, EgyptAir Flight 990, SilkAir Flight 185 and Charlie Hebdo shooting show there is no fixed "current Wikipedia practice" here. 78.86.218.155 (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as Lubitz now appears to be a notable mass-murderer.  There is already much personal media coverage that goes well beyond the scope of this one massive event.  Reports suggest that the consequences of his alleged mental condition and actions as a result, will change world-wide airline screening of pilots and policy regarding cabin-crew in the aircraft cockpit.  Fg63 (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Those consequent actions have an article specifically about them, and their ramifications. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Jcmiller1215 (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. While it may emerge that all relevant details of this man are included on the accident page and then we can have this discussion, it was absolutely a bad faith edit for the nominating editor to blatantly ignore the good faith "newpage" template. Prhartcom (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge it is common to have the "perps" listed on the same page, i.e. Adam Lanza. Plus, i personally don't like anything that glorifies a perp. smooth0707  (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments given by Juneau Mike. There is also a need for the public to know the reasons as to what caused Lubitz to take such action, so as to enhance ways to improve a person's mental health. -Mardus (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow keep We will never have consensus here, or possibly any time in the next 4 weeks. I wish I had studied the rules a bit better before nominating this. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Another note It is always very nice to see editors I respect, but have a good faith disagreement with, make a comment such as yours above. Yes, I have been deeply involved in this debate. But in the meantime, I stayed involved, actually starting the article Anchorage Fire Department, also in the newpage phase, while all of this was going on. My point is, don't take any of this personally. We all want to make Wikipedia a better place. And we are. You are a fantastic editor. I personally despise the notability policy, but I cherish consensus. We all want a great Wikipedia! Juneau Mike (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Has the nominator withdrawn this proposal? If so, please see WP:WDAFD. We can have a new discussion later if necessary. Prhartcom (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep significant person whose actions have turned the spotlight onto the issue of mental health of pilots. it is leading to significant debate on the issue and changes in pollicy. --Wikireader41 (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. User:ed_g2s is wrong on two counts: First, as per WP:OSE and WP:INN, "non-inclusion is not an indication of non-notability. [...] To suggest that a particular article is non-notable because no other similar articles exist would stunt the growth of Wikipedia, and do more harm than good", and second, the purported perpetrator in the EgyptAir Flight 990 case, Gameel Al-Batouti, does have his own article. User:Smooth0707's personal opinion about glorifying perpetrators is irrelevant to the discussion. The question to be decided is whether current policy mandates the retention or deletion of the article. The policy, WP:1E, sounds pretty unambiguous to me on this question: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. 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." In all media that I follow, the character, history, mental state, health problems, social relations etc. of Andreas Lubitz are currently the top item being reported on, far exceeding other aspects of the crash. I don't see how following this policy could lead to anything other than keeping the article. Joriki (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.