Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfgang Werlé

Wolfgang Werlé

Wolfgang Werlé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• 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.

Marginal BLP. Not everybody critical of Wikipedia is notable. This discussion might as well be had. Grsz¹¹ 04:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - 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. - 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. 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)

• 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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(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 - Allie ^❤ 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. —TheDJ (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)

• 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)