Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Doehner


 * 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. czar 08:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Werner Doehner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:1E. No indication of any claim to notability other than an "I was there and lived" with respect to the Hindenburg crash and happened to outlive the other survivors. Subject did not have a significant role in the disaster. See also the talk page discussion. (Note: I had Proded the article but the talk page discussion indicated some disagreement so I feel this is the best place to sort it out.) Ad Orientem (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Biographical works Category:Disasters
 * Keep - WP:BLP1E is NOT a stand-alone WP:DELREASON - it's very clear what it says the means for resolving a WP:BLP1E situation are and they do not include deletion, but are merge/rename/redirect (and then, not in all cases). The only reason why WP:BLP1E should lead to deletion is where the event to which you'd otherwise merge/rename/redirect is itself not notable, or there is nothing to merge, or the redirect is not plausible - and in each case there is another policy that is failed.
 * However, this is a clear case where the subject should be covered separately to the event. Specifically, notability is met for Werner Doehner on the basis of the multiple articles published in reliable, independent sources (e.g., 1 2 3) - you can't get much more notable than having multiple multi-paragraph articles written about you over the course of a number of years in national/international broadsheets. That's an easy WP:BASIC pass. Covering him above a brief mention on the page related to the disaster is obviously undue so no need to merge to the disaster article. The claim to be the last survivor of an event is separated from the event itself by more than 80 years so it is obviously not true that this is a WP:1E situation. Whilst WP:WAX is not a great argument to use at AFD, it is nonetheless the case that we have articles on the last survivors of wars and other disasters (e.g., Harry Patch, Millvina Dean) and it is instructive to consider the fact that their notability is considered as separate to the events of which they are the last survivor. FOARP (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This was really challenging. It's true that the only reason Doehner was notable was because he survived the Hindenberg (WP:1E): When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. However, there is extensive significant coverage (not reflected in the article, but exists) both over the years and now on his death. I've gone back and forth between WP:GNG and WP:1E and WP:BLP1E. I finally narrowed it down to this part of WP:BLP1E: The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. In this case, significant coverage was persistent over the years, particularly as other survivors died until he was the last one. Multiple highly-respected sources consider his role significant, even though his "role" was simply continuing to live. So, I say we should keep it. Schazjmd   (talk)  22:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the cogent arguments of and, and because we tend to keep such "last survivor" articles (although this consensus could change). Bearian (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2019 (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.