Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Lubitz (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Procedural close. The previous debate closed as withdrawn only two hours before this opened, when the previous nominator correctly judged that no consensus would be reached. Another debate so soon after is not appropriate.

See WP:DELETE: "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly" and "If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion was improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review." Fences &amp;  Windows  21:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Andreas Lubitz
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:BLP1E - yes, it was a fairly noteworthy event at this time, however he is unlikely to receive ongoing event, the subject is otherwise unknown (#2), he has only received coverage in reguards to this (#1), and the event is relatively insignificant as a crash(#3) as it is not one of the "top few" which are often requoted, it will likely fall into insignificance, with no significant context, other than it is currently receiving lots of coverage. Suggest merging into Germanwings Flight 9525 as appropriate. Mdann52 (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge to Germanwings Flight 9525 as suggested by Mdann52. This falls squarely under WP:1E. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, completely disagree with the above, as: The subject is now well known by a large amount of people; his persona has received coverage not only with regard to the airplane crash, but also wrt mental health; every air crash is almost always very significant; and the context added is significant, too. -Mardus (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not a typical air crash; this is a rare and highly notable event of an individual in an unusual position of power over the lives of others taking those lives. This person will likely now be the subject of case studies for as long as there is manned flight. bd2412  T 17:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable because it is very rare that an aeroplane crash is intentionally caused by the plane's own co-pilot, not by a hijacker or a terrorist. The article is well sourced too. J I P  &#124; Talk 17:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect. There is no reason to expect this person will ever be known for anything other than his role in this one event, which is (and will be) better documented in another article. In the very unlikely event that ever changed, it could be spun-out into a separate article, but that is speculative. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Being known for one event is not a valid deletion rationale. We have no policy that states articles for people should be deleted because they are known for one event. We do, however, have WP:ONEEVENT that states, "". If you're instead arguing that his role or the event is insignificant and can address the issues of WP:LASTING now that industry standards for major airlines has changed as a result, then I'll need to review your sources that support your opinion on the matter. Meanwhile, there are several sources that state this does have lasting consequences for the industry and the individual and event has received significant coverage. Mkdw talk 20:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep for the same reason I gave in the first debate some hours ago. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Lubitz). Once all these tags go we can get down to actually working on the article. Ulcerspar12 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There is no article for Tsu Way Ming, but Gameel Al-Batouti has a pretty extensive article. More information about Lubitz could come out in the future. Morhange (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The whole crash and himself have obviously received alot of coverage and then there's the fact he appeared to have some sort of mental illness, As BD2412 notes this is extremely rare so IMHO should be kept. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Merge to Germanwings Flight 9525 per WP:BLP1E WP:ONEEVENT and Mdann52. Only notable for the crashing of Germanwings Flight 9525.  CookieMonster755  (talk)   17:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E is for living people. If you're still in favour of redirect/merge, please thoroughly review and cite an applicable policy. Mkdw talk 20:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - I updated my reason why to redirect. Thanks.  CookieMonster755  (talk)   20:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BLP1E is a part of WP:BLP, which does state it applies to recently deceased persons, which appears relevant here. Mdann52 (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to point you to this sentence, directly in the section that is tagged with WP:BLP1E, "". Living is italicized and was intentionally put in there because BLP deals in some cases of recently deceased, but there was a need to have parts of it not deal with that issue. Mkdw talk 20:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per BD2412 and Morhange. Looks like WP:1E on the face of it, but the wider issue of mental health looks bound to create extensive non-routine coverage. GregorB (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  18:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Firstly, there are plently of sources concerning this person. Secondly, the merge of this article into the crash itself is unwise because the history of the pilot will really help to understand the genesis of the suicide. A long description of the personality in the crash article would look out of context. It is the reason why I would favour a separate article. Malosse (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per BD2412.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep the history of this person's health is likely to be used as a case study in what to look for in a mentally disturbed pilot. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Two points of order:
 * WP:BLP1E is "Biographies of Living People". That's what the "L" stands for in the link. Anyone citing that as a "policy based" argument is actually not. The wording for WP:BIO1E is different. WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E are two of the most improperly cited rationales for deletion after WP:NOT. Most people assume that anyone only notable for one event is not noteworthy enough for a standalone article which is not what the policy states at all . It actually, clearly states, "". This individual has received significant coverage because of their involvement. Almost unprecedented amounts for a pilot.
 * The incident already has lasting consequences per WP:LASTING. Several airlines and alliances have stated industry wide changes as to the minimum number of authorized personnel in the cockpit. The German aviation authority is expected to introduce legislation (something directly cited in LASTING) which is why airlines have already introduced these policies. This is the very definition of WP:LASTING and why we have it. Any statements that this will "likely" fall into insignificant is literally a personal opinion based on nothing found in a reliable source. We don't use WP:OR to tell us the notability of things. We use publications and reliable sources.
 * This could arguably be a procedural close for no valid del rationale. I would also like to remind that the previous AFD was closed less than two hours prior with a strong consensus as keep. A renomination falls under WP:DPAFD and could constitute directly as disruption.  Mkdw talk 20:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That was closed as a (speedy) keep as a withdrawn nomination. Remoninating one of those is generally, IMO, not as disruptive. Additionally, BLP1E also applies to recently deceased people, as does the rest of the policy, although that may just be my interpretation. Mdann52 (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a sentence directly in WP:BLP1E that addresses the issue of WP:BIO1E, in that context, and says "" so I strongly contest your interpretation. The word is even italicized to point that out. As for the previous AFD, it was highly participated in with a clear keep outcome. The nominator even ended up !voting "Snow keep". Had this simply been a standard withdrawal, I would agree, but I think anyone looking at it would see it as double jeopardy. Mkdw talk 20:50, 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.