Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfgang Werlé


 * 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. Discussions on renaming or possibly merging the page should take place on the talk page. NW ( Talk ) 03:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wolfgang Werlé

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Marginal BLP. Not everybody critical of Wikipedia is notable. This discussion might as well be had.  Grsz 11  04:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Why we have to delete something just because a legal claim, this is history, Wolfgang must leave this in the past, but we cannot change history, he murder Walter Sedlmayr and deleting this article is not going to change that. I understand that Wikipedia got a legal claim (check http://www.chillingeffects.org/international/notice.cgi?NoticeID=30443) but that is not a reason to delete the article, that happened, that was real, and we have newspapers and some other books saying that, or is he also going to fill a claim in order to burn the books and the newspapers? Landiatico (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - For two reasons - To delete this under these circumstances is to set a precedent that anyone who doesn't want facts about themselves "out there" can use legal action to stop them. Given increasing use by companies and governments of tactics to control free speech, this is an unwise precedent to set.  Secondly, I disagree with the section on Biographies of Living People famous for one thing in this respect.  If the one thing is sufficiently notable, that should be enough, or are we doing to insult the victims of murders by removing all their pages as in most cases, they are famous simply for being murdered.  To remove this page would be an insult not only to this victim, but to all victims.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.82.74.174 (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It has nothing to do with legal action, as a German decision would have no effect on an American-based site. It is about the fact that this man is not notable except for one event and some subsequent media coverage.  Grsz 11  04:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Neutral - IMO, he makes himself more notable by protesting, but the core of the matter is that he was convicted for murder, the victim is still dead, and that's pretty much the limit of my interest. If he and his half-brother have issues with that, they should be sure not to kill anyone in the future.  Update, changed my mind.  I have no opinion on this as long as we keep the names in the original article. - Denimadept (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sure, not everyone who criticizes wikipedia deserves an entry. But if you manage to get yourself into the new york times and the guardian with your criticism, then you just might.  And if you have a famous murder to your credit, well I think that that's pretty much a lock.  I mean really, what else are you asking of this poor Werle character to make himself notable?  I think that he's done more than enough, personally. Blowfish (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep (but rename to Murder of Walter Sedlmayr). Notable both for murder and for C&D.  I've suggested on the article talk that a separate article on legal action could have some merit, but certainly outright deletion isn't the right approach.  LotLE × talk  06:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Some of the Keep comments here seem to give reasoning along the lines that we should keep the article to "get even with Werlé who wants to censor it (and who is a bad guy)." That is, in itself, a really bad reason for keeping an article, and not one I advance.  If we keep, it should be only because the topic is sufficiently notable to merit an article (which I think it is, obviously).  LotLE × talk  23:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That seems to be exactly the issue for a lot of people, and it's been an issue before.  Grsz 11  04:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The murder and the Wikipedia action represent notability for multiple events. WWGB (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is necessary to reflect the international media coverage and lawsuit without content forking in Walter Sedlmayr.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I do not see that the coverage makes him notable. Were it not for the lawsuit, we would be deleting or redirecting as a clear BLP1E. As for the lawsuit, I believe that the lawsuit itself may be notable, but the coverage of Werlé within those articles is incidental, and would be better suited to an article on the lawsuit, or a more general article about lawsuits and Wikipedia. I'm trying to assume good faith re the creation of this article, but it seems a lot like it was created as soon as it became evident that the subject did not want an article, so much so that he is willing to go down the legal route. We need to do the right thing here and make this go away. Kevin (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Kevin, saying "I'm trying to assume good faith" before doing the opposite isn't helpful. Your words strongly suggest you have concluded (not unreasonably, IMO) a certain amount of inappropriate purpose in the creation of the article. I also think this is irrelevant - however an article got here, the text of the article, and the notability of the subject deserves to be evaluated on its merits. Ray  Talk 17:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - largely per Kevin above. The subject is already marginally notable, if at all. Being a murderer isn't enough for a BLP on its own, and the self-referential Wikipedia stuff doesn't drag it up into notability, IMO. Marginal BLP, plus the subject doesn't want it? Nuke, plz - A l l i e  ❤ 09:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but consider reframing the article as Murder of Walter Sedlmayr or similar. What's notable (and a useful encyclopedic subject independent from Walter Sedlmayr) is not so much the perpetrator as a person, but the murder itself and its legal ramifications (including the associated censorship lawsuits to which not only Wikimedia but also many German media have been made subject). It appears that the murder and the trial were very big news in Germany for a long time; for instance the NYT of July 18, 1990 notes that "The country's most popular newspaper, Bild Zeitung, did not even treat the fall of one more obstacle to German unity as the most important news this morning, displaying the article under the slaying of Walter Sedlmayr, a well-known Bavarian television actor."  Sandstein   11:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WWGB.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The subject was the perpetrator of a reasonably popular murder in Germany, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox, something that applies when the deletion constitutes the action. See the Mohammad Cartoons controversy.  This recent lawsuit is also unprecedented (AFAIK) in it's coverage, and therefore constitutes new relevant information which suggests keeping the article.  And it's hard to argue that we should maintain an article for the lawsuit without pointing out why the lawsuit was needed.  Biccat (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - for all the reasons outlined above. --Tris2000 (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as above - murderers have no right to dictate to us over matters of law... Colds7ream (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I think the attention towards this case is partly sensational (by the press) and partly conflict of interest by our editors. The event of the murder is well enough covered in the article of Walter Sadlmeyer. It's bordering on BLP1E in my opinion, and I think we should have deleted it, though I doubt that is still gonna happen. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 16:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "conflict of interest": ouch. Here's the key point, in my opinion: we must not remove the names from the original article.  If we delete this article, we must be certain to keep the names where they do belong. - Denimadept (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with you there. I don't dispute the inclusion of the names is warranted. I just think that at the moment the attention towards this case is skewed. There is no proof yet that this is gonna be a turning point in history just yet. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 01:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As Kevin correctly points out, were it not for the lawsuit, this would be a clear WP:BLP1E. However, the lawsuit is clearly a significant second and separate event where the subject is involved, and the coverage of the lawsuit is not incidental to him, as he is the plaintiff. For that reason, I oppose the inevitable separation of closely linked information that would arise from deleting the article, as being unhelpful to our readers and thus to Wikipedia. Ray  Talk 17:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: The coverage of the lawsuit is not incidental to him. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, extensive coverage, in multiple languages, for more than one "event" -- I find it difficult to make sense of this AfD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. BLP1E is not a bright line. Suggesting that because this person is now encyclopedia-worthy because he is known for two events is not a reasonable argument. This article as it stands contains one sentence about the man, a paragraph about the murder, and two paragraphs on his dispute with Wikipedia. Disputes with Wikipedia are pretty common (didn't Daniel Brandt sue multiple times?) - this is one of the reasons why we have WP:OTRS. They don't all reach this level of publicity, though arguably it's the press out for a story. Evidently, this is a textbook case of an article not being about its purported subject. The coverage here is incidental, since if you remove the name he's no longer identifiable.  See also WP:109PAPERS.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think Daniel Brandt's lawsuit was covered by the New York Times, the Guardian, or by a number of other major papers. -- B figura (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Brandt was never convicted of murder, and therefore his story lacked the sensation factor that the press like to latch on to, along the lines of the proverbial missing white woman. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Two sources of notability (crimes, and Wikipedia lawsuit) take him past WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, and both are adequately supported by reliable independent sources testifying to his notability per WP:N. There's no cogent, policy-supported reason for this article's deletion.  (I'd add to the nominator, Grsz11, that if you're not personally convinced that the article can and should be deleted on the basis of policy that it's not helpful to bring it to AfD.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This page hardly constitutes a biography. When was he born?  Delete Werle's "biography"; keep his name in the article on Sedlmayr.  Sedlmayr's biography should have as many facts in it as possible.  DoD300 (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that putting this material in the Sedlmayr article, whatever the result from this vote, is a good idea. The lawsuit which is covered on this page is about Sedlmayer the wikipedia page, not Sedlmayer the person.  If a move is required, it should be to a new article discussing this lawsuit, rather than to Sedlmayer. Blowfish (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The Wikipedia community already set a precedent when it removed the article on Daniel Brandt based on his wish to see it deleted. So submitting to an individual's complaints is already a policy precedent. There was no reason to delete the well researched article on Brandt which had many more references, and he was known for many more things than his fight with Wikipedia. So restore Daniel Brandt or delete this article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That's a very valid argument. Brandt is certainly much more notable (as far as long-term exposure goes) than Werle every will be, Streisand effect or not.  Grsz 11  04:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's NOT a very valid argument. The Brandt article was deleted on grounds of notability (see here) and in an atmosphere that included legal action on the part of Brandt.  I believe the current block against recreation may be as a result of office action.  There's no policy support in that dispute for the idea that individuals can opt-out of having articles about themselves on the Wiki and in fact the community has specifically rejected that proposal. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've seen the "other stuff exists" argument. I've not seen the "other stuff doesn't exist" argument before. Ray  Talk 16:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We can pretend it was deleted for non notability after 14 nominations for deletion where 13 were defeated ... because that is what the last person wrote when he deleted it in number 14 ... or we can correctly conclude that the Wikipedia community has agreed that a person who wants his biography removed, despite notability and verifiability, can have it removed. Brandt was able to apply more pressure by outing Wikipedia editors and publishing personal information on them in his blog. Now that we have a precedence, we should allow others to opt out too ... or bring back the Brandt article.


 * Comment:So, you're saying, and please correct me if and where I'm wrong, that we have to be bound by the hidden logic of a precedent that was established with the aid of blackmail? Blowfish (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A precedent, is a precedent, is a precedent. Just like any other system of laws, we abide by precedents, or revert them to be consistent. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're running against WP:BURO here. A misplaced concern with apparent consistency is one of the defining characteristics of a bureaucracy. Wikipedia is governed not by bureaucracy or law, but instead, by consensus on a case by case basis. Even when there's policy, discussion of its applicability happens on a case by case basis. If there is a consensus here to keep, and a consensus there to delete, that's entirely possible, and it may occur for reasons that are unarticulated. That doesn't make it less valid a consensus. Ray  Talk 20:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: I truly think WP:ONEEVENT is probably the most misquoted and misunderstood guideline in this encyclopedia. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Low profile? Hardly. Wolfgang Werlé isn't someone who played a marginal role in a trivial matter than lasted only one news cycle. He's the convicted murderer of a well-known victim in a case that appears to be very widely publicized. (Or, in the event his claims of innocence are true, he's been framed for said murder, which only makes him more notable.) The murder alone satisfies WP:ONEVENT and makes him notable. Throw the Wikipedia suit in there and that only establishes further notability. —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  05:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Slightly off topic here, but in response to the above contributions, Daniel Brandt still has Wikipedia articles in the French language version, plus Esperanto, Spanish, Hebrew, Polish and Portuguese. Not English, though.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - Per Kevin and Alison. Marginal BLP on a murderer, and the subject doesn't want the article. Those two statements lead me to say that there is no need for this. Coffee  //  have a cup  //  ark  // 15:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * comment - the subject not wanting the article is completely irrelevant. I want the subject to spin on a broken broom, but I doubt he'll do it. - Denimadept (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP, we don't just use sarcasm to prevent it from being taken care of appropriately. Please act more sensible, this is a biography of a living person here, not a playground. This AFD must be gotten right, we don't just care about the subject's wishes, we also care about the fact that the subject is only marginally notable at best, as a matter of fact it's almost a BLP1E. Those two facts combined mean that this article should be deleted no matter what, clear case of WP:IAR. --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 08:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Renaming to Murder of Walter Sedlmayr is one possibility as mentioned, but deleting the article because the subject has said that he does not want it is daft.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As ianmacm write here, and Sandstein does above, I also feel the Murder of Walter Sedlmayr would be a better home for the content of the article that the current name Wolfgang Werlé. But that is a renaming issue (or perhaps "merge" or "spinoff"), not an AfD one.  On the content itself, it's definitely notable.  If the precedent of the Brandt case is that WP is "opt out" by living bio subjects, that's a really bad precedent that should not be followed, especially if it was ever applied to a hugely notable figure as opposed to the only marginally notable one where it's come up already.  LotLE × talk  18:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Clearly if Tom Cruise asked for his article deleted, it wouldn't be. This is a different issue. He's hardly relevant and there is no need for this to remain.  Grsz 11  18:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There really is a need for this to remain though. You seem to be making the twin dishonest argument, Grsz11, to those making the one that Werlé "deserved" to get an article he doesn't want.  We should neither keep nor remove an article because the opinion of the bio's subject... not to "get even with them", but also not to defer to them.  The only issue must be notability.  If you have an argument about that, that the extensive coverage hasn't reached notability, make that one instead!  LotLE × talk  18:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has renamed this article to Murder of Walter Sedlmayr, with which I fully agree. In this form the article meets WP:GNG, due to substantial media coverage over a period of more than fifteen years.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This might (or might not) be the best solution, but shouldn't we make some consensus here before making any moves or other actions? Somebody seems to have reverted it, and an edit war wouldn't be useful right now. Blowfish (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep notable for the murder and Wikipedia issues. We shouldn't simply ignore the fact that the subject chose to sue Wikipedia and attract a great deal of media attention simply because we are Wikipedia. There seem to plenty of reliable sources to establish the notability of the incident. Also, I have an issue with people using "subject asks for deletion" here. It's one thing for a non-notable person to ask us for courtesy deletion. However, allowing high-profile convicts whose notability is established (even if only by the coverage generated by the Streisand effect) to have their articles sent down the memory hole seems like a bad idea. Yes, the article does seem to have some COATRACK issues. But those can either be fixed by regular editing (to add more biographical detail) or a rename.  B figura  (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, when you try that, you get filibustered by users that don't want to compromise, reverted by automated processes, and then accused of vandalism for undoing those mistaken automated processes. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Renamed article is fine. Also, subject didn't request deletion but requested name not be included in initial article about Walter Sedlmayr. That's clearly not consistent with Wikipedia policy. Also, claims that notability is due to Wikipedia related issues are misguided in that a) Wikipedia related material must be treated just as other material (some people think WP:SELFREF says otherwise. They should read what it actually says) and b) the surrounding controversy and related issues likely met notability even without the Wikipedia material.  Given renaming, there is no credible deletion argument. Follow: To clarify since the renaming keeps going back and forth I see renaming as the most reasonable thing to do and under the rename think it should be kept. Without the renaming I weekly favor keeping since the ongoing controversy has made Werle notable and we don't actually have any reason to think that he would see an article as substantially worse than mentioning his name in the main Sedlmayr article. JoshuaZ (talk)
 * Comment: I've reverted the title change Lulu of the Lotus-Eater made from Wolfgang Werle to "Murder of Walter Sedlmayr". Although I have as much respect for WP:BOLD as the next Wikipedia, I think it's a complete insult to the AFD process, WP:CONSENSUS and to all the Wikipedians participating in this discussion for someone to make such an article change right in the middle of an AFD discussion. Such a title change may very well be the decision of this AFD, but since we're already deep into the discussion, it only makes sense to wait until the outcome... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  19:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just plain wrong. An AfD discussion cannot result in "rename", that's a separate issue.  By renaming the article, I clarified what it is in the content that merits a "keep" under notability, which is exactly the correct thing to do during an AfD discussion.  One is not barred from improving an article that is under AfD discussion, under the crazy theory that it "must stand or fall" on the merits of the article as written at the time of the nomination.  AfD's frequently can, do, and should result in article improvements.  That said, I am obviously not going to edit war over it or revert the title.  I encourage other editors to work on this though.  LotLE × talk  19:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "An AfD discussion cannot result in "rename"..." Why not?  Consensus could easily develop on "keep and rename" Blowfish (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's not be overly bureaucratic here. Murder of Walter Sedlmayr is a better name for the current version of the article, which is well sourced. Since there is a consensus that Wolfgang Werlé is not an ideal name for the article, it would be better to rename it rather than rehashing the WP:BLP dispute.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not accurate to say there is a consensus yet. We are building a consensus in this AFD process; there's no reason not to wait just a few days for the outcome. And Blowfish is right, an AFD can result in a "Merge" ruling. It happens all the time, and it may possibly be the outcome in this case. For the record, I'd also like to state that I am not necessarily opposed to a merge to "Murder of Walter Sedlmayr" if that's what the consensus decides. However, if such an article were made, I would insist that it have to include the information about the Wikipedia dispute. Since it's related to the murder, I would imagine it's not a problem to keep it in that article. But if an issue is raised that it would not fit into the "Murder" article, then I'd vote we keep "Wolfgang Werlé"... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  19:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The murder and the lawsuit are tangentially repated at best. The content about the lawsuit isn't appropriate in a biographical context - this guy's life is clearly defined by other things.  It's not appropriate in the article on the murder victim, because it's entirely irrelevant to it.  Any association of the dispute with the subject without a supporting biography is inexcusable.  There are plenty of controversies affecting Wikipedia, this one isn't any different.  It may have been more widely reported purely because of the press desire for a sensational story.  The content relating to the lawsuit should go in an article under a title that reflects action against Wikipedia, and not hung upon the murder or offered as a sham biography.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The lawsuit is more than appropriate for Werle's biography. It's one of the things that makes him notable, and it's far from unprecedented to include information about lawsuits brought forward by people in their Wikipedia entries. What I was saying was I would support a merge to a "Murder" article as long as the Wikipedia lawsuit information could be transferred to it. By your logic, it would not be appropriate for a murder article. Therefore, I'd have to withdraw any weak support I had for the merge, and maintain my support for the biography page... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  22:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be appropriate for a biography, if we had one, but IMO "Wolfgang Werlé is a German who was convicted of the 1990 murder of actor Walter Sedlmayr" on its own does not make a biography. The lawsuit and the murder aren't particularly related other than by coincidence.  Plenty of people have asked for information to be removed - this case is no different.  The murder conviction is a red herring, since he is deemed to have served his sentence (he is specifically an ex-convict) and gets to enjoy the rights and privileges of a free citizen.  It merely happens to be something the press have latched on to for the sake of sensation - we explicitly do not follow suit in this regard.  Strip that away, and you've got just another news story, albeit a widely-reported one.  In this respect, he is no different from any other private citizen, and his request is no different.  To deal with it differently is to deprive him of basic human dignity.  We haven't historically dealt with them by retaliating, so we shouldn't do so here.  The lawsuit is not unique.  The applicability of laws is not unique.  The current article title is inappropriate, and the two different subjects covered should go in two separate articles.  The current situation would be like having an article ostensibly about me but discussing the visit of Pope John Paul II to Paris and the death of Princess Diana, on the basis that on the day of the former I walked across the location of the latter.  Such is not the nature of biography.  81.111.114.131 (talk) (no longer forever) 23:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the parallel, unless you murdered pope John Paul, and were trying to prevent princess Diana from telling anyone about it. In which case, that would make for a pretty awesome biography. Blowfish (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The work that has been done on the article today has been designed to establish the notability of the Sedlmayr case as a whole, rather than to be a WP:BLP of Wolfgang Werlé. As somebody else pointed out, we don't even know Werlé's date of birth, but there is ample reliable sourcing about the Sedlmayr case and the ongoing lawsuits it has produced.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a relatively easy keep. Ironically enough, it would be a marginal "keep" save for coverage of the subject that has been caused by the ruckus his lawyer has raised about the ludicrous German "privacy of murderers" law. Given that extensive coverage, as well as the marginal (but not non-existent) notability that this subject already had before that, this is really quite an easy call. U  A  20:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if exclusively for the New York Times coverage. This is a perfect example of an action producing the opposite of its intend result.  Its funny actually.  This is why its important to hire a lawyer from the country you intend to do business. Mr. Stopp is clearly unfamiliar with the United State's Laws and the character of its citizens.--OMCV (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - OK, just a thought I want to throw out here. There currently is no article for Manfred Lauber, who was convicted of the same murder as Walter Sedlmayr, and is involved with the same Wikipedia lawsuit case. I obviously don't think it's advisable to make a page for Lauber at least until the AFD process is complete. However, if the result of this AFD is keep, then that presumably means a consensus/decision will have been reached that Werle is considered notable enough for an article and, since Lauber is noted for the same things, that Lauber would be notable enough for an article too. But I also think it would be redundant to make an article for Lauber that basically says the same thing as the Werle article. I wonder if (again, in the event of a "Keep" decision) this article should be changed to Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber, and encompass both of them, since both of the elements that make them notable are shared between the two. (Like how we have an article for Sacco and Vanzetti, instead of separate ones for Ferdinando Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti). Again, this is just an idea. Any thoughts? —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not seen articles that indicate that Manfred Lauber participated in the recent C&D's. Those seemed to be only on behalf of Werlé (though obviously, Lauber would have identical standing, if any, in such an action if it occurred).  I have no opinion at this time about wheither Lauber merits a WP article, but if he does not have the additional notability conveyed by participation in a well-covered legal action, his notability would presumably be lower than that of Werlé. Of course, if we just do the obvious and sensible renaming, the issue becomes moot, since both half-brothers would be naturally mentioned in the article about the murder, even if only one participated in the subsequent legal action.  LotLE × talk  00:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazingly, the above assertion about Wolfgang Werlé's lawyer is incorrect. Dr. Alexander H. Stopp is qualified to practice at both the Frankfurt and New York State Bar Association, to which he was admitted in 1992. This means that he has presumably heard about the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and knows why this type of lawsuit would be tossed on First Amendment grounds. The only logical explanation for all of this is pandering to the whims of his client.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That brings up another question where does a lawsuit have to be filed to effect Wikipedia's Florida servers. I also know Lawyers aren't always able to practice in every state, would that play a role here?  By the way since Stopp's "Dr." comes from University of Augsburg I don't think we should recognize him as such considering how Germany has been treating English speaking PhDs.--OMCV (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per subject's request. —  Jake   Wartenberg  23:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Daniel Brandt aside, there is no policy that supports this recommendation. U  A  00:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't put Brandt aside. Jimmy Wales himself set the precendent.  Grsz 11  00:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not moot court. We don't have precedent, just policy. (And even if we did, it's not at all clear that one can draw a valid analogy between the two cases) -- B figura (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And once again, Wikipedia has specifically rejected the opt-out policy for BLPs. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Whose idea was the legal challenge in the first place?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 23:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It was agreed at the time of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion of Walter Sedlmayr edit history required in 2008 that the English language Wikipedia would not remove information about the case that was already in the public domain. The Sedlmayr case as a whole easily meets WP:GNG, but it is less than ideal to frame the current brouhaha as a WP:BLP1E of Wolfgang Werlé. This is why the current version of the article would be better renamed as Murder of Walter Sedlmayr.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Subject request should absolutely not be a criterion for deletion! It's a basic freedom of the press rule! --Wizard IT (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to article about the privacy case which doesn't mention his name in title and make sure that the article focusses on this current and entirely notable case and not on details of original conviction which a bio of him will inevitably do. Either that or delete this and start an article fresh on the privacy case. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 15:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good plan, maybe we could call the article Murder of Walter Sedlmayr? LotLE × talk  22:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because such an article would not and should not be about the murder, which can itself be adequately covered in Walter Sedlmayr. It would be about the lawsuit and the privacy dispute.  It's an entirely separate issue from the murder.  Treat it as what it is - a privacy dispute between someone wanting to make a fresh start (as they are legally and morally entitled to do) and the world at large.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Walter Sedlmayr; Werlé has no importance outside Sedlmayr's murder and subsequent related events. --NE2 20:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The information on the murder could be moved to SedlMayr. The current dispute, however doesn't belong on that page.  If anything, we could move information on the murder and trial to Sedlmayer  (or to a new page), and content regarding the new dispute to Werle lawsuit to a new page, something like "Werle privacy dispute."  So I think that the main alternative to "Keep" should be "split". Blowfish (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The current dispute is related to the murder, and as such relates to Sedlmayr. --NE2 22:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relevance isn't transitive. And for that matter, it's debatable whether the current dispute would belong on a page entitled "Murder of Walter Sedlmayr".  The only way that all of this material fits together on one page is as a biographical page for Wolfgang Werle.  Otherwise, the links between these events are too tangential. Blowfish (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - (Per Kevin etc.) Others seem to see the irony of us having this article because of the lawsuit as funny; I see it as embarassing and rather childish. The guy asks for his name to be removed and the first thing we do is give him his own article. We are trying to build a respected encyclopedia here! In response to comments such as "no policy supports deletion": policy is descriptive. If enough people think a policy needs to change it will change. Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've raised this example before, but if someone connected with Michael Jackson's estate rang us up and asked us to take down the Michael Jackson article because they were tired of all the references to the child molestation allegations, would we take it down? Either the guy is not notable, in which case there's no problem in taking down the article, or he's notable, in which case the article is in the public interest and we shouldn't be allowing him to censor otherwise appropriate content on the grounds of his personal discomfort. And the appropriate way to change policy is to raise it as a policy change proposal, where all interested parties can take part, rather than doing it unilaterally in an AfD where people who may have an interest in an opt-out policy may not know it's being discussed. - DustFormsWords (talk)
 * Your analogy fails. It would be more accurate to describe this as "Michael Jackson's doctor complains about his name being in the article on Jackson, and we respond by creating an article about him".  People that turn up in news stories are not public figures by virtue of this.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or more accurately yet, Michael Jackson's doctor, already notable but with a BLP1E context, complains, and his complaint is widely reported with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. But the point is that either the article deserves to exist or it doesn't, the fact that someone's complained has nothing to do with the deletion process. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because this may not be the ideal location, users are still entitled to suggest what they think is the best course of action. Additionally, you seem to belive notability is a very clear black or white issue. In my experience, articles can be borderline, some AfDs would come out keep, others would end up delete. In such cases, it makes more sense for BLPs to be deleted. Suicidalhamster (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per many above. A misreading of ONEEVENT is no reason to take this down. The subject meets the GNG. Darrenhusted (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Suicidalhamster. This is indeed childish and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Imagine that: Anybody could just add personal information about someone he doesn't like to Wikipedia, and if this turns out to be illegal in that persons country, the Wikipedia Foundation has to deal with the lawsuit. At least we're now getting a test case to see whether German law does apply to text hosted in English, too. The right of re-socialisation is nothing peculiar to German law, in Anglo-Saxon law you have it. But where in England or Australia former convicts have a right to chance the name, preceding cases in Germany established that in these case people can sue the press for giving their name. Of course, this was before the advent of the internet, so W.W. will have to change his name anyway. But when you guys now create an article on him, that really is an embarrassment for Wikipedia. Zara1709 (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As mentioned previously, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion of Walter Sedlmayr edit history required decided in 2008 that the mens' names would not be removed from the English language Wikipedia, since the information was already in the public domain and had First Amendment protection. This was before Dr Alexander H Stopp succeeded in bringing the matter international coverage in the New York Times and elsewhere in 2009. The difference between German and Anglo Saxon law on this issue has been noted, but the real issue here is whether Wolfgang Werlé is worth a separate WP:BLP, or whether the information should be covered elsewhere.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that discussion did not achieve that conclusion. That discussion achieved no conclusion at all, because some editors were of the opinion that wp:blp would not apply to former criminals. I am no legal expert, and back then I knew even less on the issue, but that opinion ("criminals don't have a personal rights") is contrary to the laws in the developed countries I know (I could quote cases from Germany, Britain and Australia, if necessary.) If the policy (!) of Biographies of living persons had been followed over a year ago, Wikipedia would now not be involved in an unnecessary and potentially costly lawsuit, but no administrator was brave enough to take a stand in the issue, and back then I was still naive enough to believe that you should actually try convince people by argument. No, if you are discussing issues on the internet many people are actually not interested in a balanced discussion of all legal and moral concerns involved, but are simply seeking another flame war. As a result, the decision finding process is at Wikipedia is highly inefficient (I spent a whole month on the discussion!) and quite painful. In this case, the 'pain' consists in a lawsuit, which, in my estimate, Wikipedia has a 60-80% chance of loosing. And currently you are only making it worse! What do you think, will the judge say, when he learns that Wikipedia responded to the cease-and-desist letter by creating an article on W.W.? That aside, W.W. as person is not notable, we don't even know his year of birth! If you want to keep the article, you should be searching a source for that, instead of digging up old and futile discussion. Zara1709 (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What lawsuit? German law doesn't hold in the USA, and the USA has no such law with which to bring suit.  If they sue WP in the USA, they'll be tossed out of court, I earnestly hope. - Denimadept (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Legal threats on the Internet are meaningless and often counterproductive. To give another example: back in February this year, a teenager in the United States posted a video on YouTube showing him abusing a cat, which led to widespread outrage and condemnation in the media.. I could post the youth's name and give a link to the uncensored video here, but am not going to. Suffice to say that anyone could find these things on Google with a bit of work. The best form of privacy on the Internet is not to draw attention to the information in the first place. Dr Stopp has given this story a publicity boost that it need never have had by issuing legal threats like confetti since the release of his client in 2007.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So what's your point? In Germany, the law concerning personality rights allows to demand the removal of names from media sources in cases like this, in Australia and England former criminals simply get new names, if necessary. I am just describing the legal situation. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, W.W. is not notable. (Are your trying to find a source for his year of birth, yet?) As far as wp:blp is concerned, his name should have been removed from the article in the first place, which is why we are now seeing an interesting test case. I would agree that the understanding of personality rights in Germany is problematic in the age of the internet, and the W.W. will have no other option but to change his name anyway, but this solves neither this deletion discussion nor the blp issue nor does it help Wikipedia in the ongoing lawsuit. Zara1709 (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a fantastically interesting reading of wp:blp. That policy might (and I'm being very generous here) allow one to argue against the inclusion of a stand alone article.  I don't think it does but reasonable people might differ.  But to suggest that Wolfgang Werle isn't sufficiently notable to be included in articles on events in which he was the instigator is absurd.  There is no way that verifiability could be grounds for scrubbing the name; and therefore this encyclopedia should resist all attempts to have German law imposed on it. Blowfish (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that WW (as you call him) is probably not worth a standalone WP:BLP, but the Sedlmayr case and its ongoing controversies are notable. I live in the UK, where there have been cases in which people released from prison have been given new identities in order to avoid unwanted publicity (eg Mary Bell, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, Maxine Carr). This is a better way of doing things, particularly in the age of the Internet. The current German privacy law dates from 1973 and requests like this one from a Hamburg court are likely to collapse outside Germany's borders.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 10:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So let's agree that we should focus on the notability of W.W. Obviously, there are several independent news sources for the incident involving him and Wikipedia, but there aren't any sources on him as a person. For a start, we don't know his year and place of birth. The cases you mentioned attracted enough attention to lead a non-trivial to a coverage of the perpetrators in reliable sources; The Sedlmayr murder attracted quite some attention when it occurred, but nobody wrote a book about it (unlike the case of Mary Bell e.g.). If you want to include the information on the current lawsuit somewhere (you might want to start a section on Germany in the article Personality rights), that would be fine with me. If you want to have an article on the person, however, you should be trying to establish notability. Zara1709 (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability of Werlé is established by the existence of reliable sources giving extensive coverage, in relation to the murder and the lawsuit. You are of course entitled to your opinion on whether this is sufficient according to Wikipedia's notability standards, but your view is evidently not shared by a great many people contributing to this AfD.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some bizarre tendency to conflate notability with availability of information. This is erroneous.  It is entirely possible for someone to be notable, but for whatever reason, to not have certain facts about that person.  Werle's year of birth, for instance, is an absolute red herring.  If we had it, we would include it, but it's absence is not somehow to be some kind of magic bullet that consigns him to non-notability.  We do not know Jack the Ripper's date of birth, for instance, and I submit that it does not matter.  Many figures, past and present, have an aura of mystery about them but are notable nonetheless. Blowfish (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We dont know who jack the Ripper was so it is a different case. Andcertainly we do not publish articles on all conviction murderers who get substantial publicity. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 16:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's true that we don't know Jack the Ripper's birth date, nor birth name. However, we do know the name of Frederick Douglass, or Jesus, or Crazy Horse, but not their birth dates (we have "circa" in those... and we well could in Werlé's article if we wanted to).  I don't think the lack of birth date is a good reason to delete those other rather notable bios either.  LotLE × talk  18:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Seriously? You're comparing the guy to Jesus? You mean the supposedly-lived-2000-years-ago might-actually-be-more-than-one-person inspiration-for-over-a-billion-people Jesus? Apples and oranges much? We are missing details on that guy because he was walking the Earth around 2000BW, before even Bruce Forsyth. Our documentary record of the time is less than complete. I'd suggest that had he not been an ex-con who had been jailed for murder, the lawsuit would have passed unnoticed. It stinks of moral panic sensationalism. The article as it stands is not even remotely arguably a biography. The fact that we are seemingly unable to find any biographical data in our information-rich environment points strongly to the conclusion that he's a private individual. The basic premise is that if a subject is notable, we must know stuff about it. It seems to be the case that the event is notable, but the person is not. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you mean to be posting, 81.*, over at Articles for deletion/Jesus. 76.171.26.63 (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. He electively became a non-private person by willfully committing notable acts. Namely, an extremely famous murder, and years later, an attempt to silence media that would print his name.  His notability has stood the test of time, since the fame that he acquired many years ago persists, as you can see.  That our knowledge of him is much stronger in some aspects of his life than in others matters not one wit, because, again, notability is not the same thing as having perfect knowledge of a subject.  Blowfish (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think by suing to try to get his name removed from the Walter Sedlmayr article, Werlé has made himself notable enough to merit his own article. Blackeagle (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. He's notable as a famous murderer, and for his role in the ongoing controversy relating to internet censorship (which makes him even more notable). The article is supported by reliable sources. The case is really quite similar to Lutz Heilmann or Barbara Streisand. Urban XII (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't merely one of whether he's notable. It's that the article is blatantly not about him.  It's becoming embroiled in a dispute in the real world (most people here know it as "that big blue room down the hall").  81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep No longer BLP1E, well-sourced article, and for all the other reasons above. Astronominov 16:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh is it a BLP11/2E now? I don't see valid reasoning in this argument. Note to closing admin: Please remember that this is not a vote, the strength of the argument is the main focal point. --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 14:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if, for a change, people actually familiar with BLP policies participated in AfDs. Replying to this is a waste of time. It's almost criminal. Event with media coverage #1: Murdering Walter. Event with media coverage #2: Suing the Foundation. The "context of one event" statement no longer applies. "BLP11/2E" FFS. Aditya Ex Machina 10:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep He should have thought about the consequences before doing what he did. We are an encyclopedia and are not censored. However it is difficult to see notability beyond his crime, I would support a merge into the article on the victim.. Himalayan   10:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not being censored does not really apply to BLPs, and is a weak argument at AFD. In fact we usually do censor BLPs to prevent us from being libel for the content. --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 14:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - BLPs are "censored" exactly the same as every other article - material that isn't verifiable is removed. We just do it more aggressively with BLPs.  You can feel free to delete unverifiable material from the article at any time (although completely blanking it is not in the spirit of the AfD regardless of whether it might otherwise be supported by policy). - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Murderers of notable people make themselves notable by that act. The murderers of John Lennon and President Kennedy both have articles along with many other assassins.  If it were not for the act of murder, Wikipedia would have had nothing to say on any of these criminals.  There is nothing essentially different in this case, only the degree of notability is somewhat less, but nevertheless still there.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  15:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Walter Sedlmayr. This has become fairly standard practice for living people who are known primarily or only in reference to a crime, particularly one whose notability stems from the prior notability of the victim.  So Mikhail Markhasev redirects to Ennis Cosby, etc. Chick Bowen 01:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That argument would be more persuasive were it not for the post-murder interaction with the media which has very little to do with Sedlmayr. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet it is currently covered in the Sedlmayr article anyway, meaning that everything Werlé is known for is there in some form. Also, I'm not convinced his current newsworthiness is all that big a deal.  He filed a probably fruitless lawsuit.  It struck a nerve in the media only because it reminds them of previous concerns about Wikipedia and privacy, concerns that we already cover in detail. Chick Bowen 01:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets the GNG, and has been involved in two discrete, high-profile matters, so BLP1E can't apply. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral was going to be delete per respect for marginally notable living person's wishes, but moved to neutral per Streisand effect - deleting the article would likely increase rather than decrease the very publicity this person wants to dampen. OK, that's not the real reason I'm neutral.  The real reason is that in the English-speaking world, he's in that fringe area of semi-notability between "low enough we should honor a request for deletion by the subject" and "too notable to honor such a request."  His own actions aren't helping though.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... should notability assessment be differential across languages? I'd argue no, but it's an interesting idea. Blowfish (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As per many others notability for 2 different events is established making it not a BLP1E and meeting the notability guideline - as such no policy reason for deletion. Davewild (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The strength of freedom of the press and the right of self-defense in the U.S. are considered to outweigh the privacy rights of those convicted of criminal offenses. --Meisterkoch (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a notable topic, although I'm not sure it's appropriate as a biography. I would support moving the article to a more appropriate title. Reach Out to the Truth 05:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Landiatico, Blowfish and others. Tomas e (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes the first test of WP:PERPClick23 (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I recognise it's difficult to be impartial about this article, because the notability of the subject is tied up with the existence of the article itself; I nonetheless think he is notable, by our standards. He was widely covered by independent sources when first convicted for the murder, and again when he tried to suppress information about it more recently. Perhaps a rename or merge might be appropriate, but I think notability is fairly clear here. As for the demands that we remove the article: I've been sympathetic to such requests before, but in this case, given the amount of press attention it has received, I don't think we should acquiesce unless we actually have to do so. Robofish (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2009 (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.