Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 April 18

18 April 2015

Andreas Lubitz

Andreas Lubitz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) The closing admin stated that consensus was to merge Andreas Lubitz into Germanwings Flight 9525, but that could not be farther from the truth. There was absolutely NO consensus to MERGE, and passionate and well reasoned arguments were given by both sides. This was a major incident, and Lubitz was the known perpetrator of it. According to Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons guidelines, when a major event occurs, and someone is a major part of it, a separate article is generally appropriate. (Not quoting verbatim) I assume good faith, but this does not represent the consensus of the Wikipedia community. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note the merge discussion linked in the header above is one of two apparently parallel discussions, an afd was also running --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn The close was based on BLP. BLP in some instances can apply to the recently dead, in order to avoid morbid over emphasis on victims and similar sensationalism, but it does nto apply here, when there was already world-wode coverage. We've been using BLP as a magic word, meaning we need niot think but can do what owe like regardless of common sense. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Changes were locked out of the Andreas Lubitz page because another editor attempted to go against the merge decision and return the article several times. Vote counts are not used to determine consensus, per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. ― Padenton|✉   04:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Reply Nobody has ever said they are. I notice you always ignore the very strong and compelling, "major incident and major contributor" part of the guideline. Juneau Mike (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You said, and I quote from your nom here: "!votes were almost 1/1 on both sides." and " Changes have been locked out of the Andreas Lubitz page, which seems over-bearing and elitist." As for the topic, this is deletion review, it is not the place to reiterate arguments that have already been said 20 different ways on the discussion pages. Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." ― Padenton|✉   05:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

And the decision was flawed, as I explained. Juneau Mike (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Two of the rationales you provided to claim the decision being flawed were themselves flawed, as indicated above in my original comment. ― Padenton|✉   05:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Amended.Juneau Mike (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• overturn to no consensus - BLP1E does not say "who ain't famous to teenage and twenty-something anglo-boys", nor does it say "where you'd want to protect them if you were Big Brother and their big brother". It's a very simple idea - if the sources cover the event, rather than the perrson, we should cover the event, rather than the person. Here, I count at least four sources which cover the man rather the event [1][2][3][4] (though certainly mention the crash, just as even a book about John Wilkes Booth's acting career will mention that he shot some guy). Given this, invocation of BLP1E can't be taken seriously without an explanation of why something that seems not to apply should (and that was not forthcoming). (so, sort of per DGG) WilyD 07:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment fomr RfC closer. There is no consensus to delete at AfD, but merge is not delete. I discerned a narrow result in favour of merge at this time at the separate RfC, not as a vote but as a weighted assessment of the policy-based arguments as they seemed to me.

This is a case where, no matter the outcome, a substantial proportion of people will feel passionately that it is wrong: if we overturn to Keep, they will probably be along next.

My reading of the RfC was in favour of merge because (unlike other cited cases, e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald) there is, as yet, no way of telling us whether history will judge Lubitz to be significant independent of the event, and the specifics of the case, including mental illness, mandate sensitive handling. I am profoundly disturbed by the fact that some people state they have "never felt more strongly" about anything than keeping this article on Wikipedia. That speaks to a rather sinister undercurrent, fed, I think, from the undoubtedly prurient and at times vicious media coverage. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, if you want to add some of our fine collection of alphabet soup.

So my suggestion is that we abide by the RfC close and do not revisit the issue for six months. That should give a better idea of the actual significance of the subject and (hopefully) will give us substantial analytical sources, in dispassionate terms, from which to draw an article. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

In cases in which you have had one relatively unknown actor kill a national figure (Booth killing Lincoln), or you have had one unknown guy suddenly kill 149 unknown people as we have here, it all rises to the level of notability for purposes on this Wiki. Lubitz' motivations and what caused him to commit mass murder and suicide deserves to be studied at length. For purposes of criminology, this is why we have related sections in encyclopedias. This is where JzG failed here. Failed in good faith, mind you. Padenton may not realize this because he has convinced himself that the way he responds during disagreements is all borne of a superior understanding of how Wikipedia functions, but his style and tone come across as belittling, bludgeoning and condescending. He becomes so irritated by other editors not seeing things his way, that he has to talk down to them because he feels the opposing arguments are beneath him. Mind you, he can quote line for line every policy he believes exists on Wikipedia that he thinks will support his arguments. But he utterly ignores every other policy-based argument that do not support his point of view. He will simply not respond to them with a single word. That is why his Talk Page is full of arguments, and block warnings and messages from disgruntled, good faith editors. This is why he will never be an admin. He would never pass the rigorous battle needed for that. Neither would I. But I would fail because of my lack of expertise in encyclopedic prose. Padenton would fail because of the demeanor he represents here to other editors. I know this is a merge/AfD review, and should stay on that topic. And truly, my reply is. Padenton has decided that there will not be an Andreas Lubitz page, and that in his mind is that. I focus this reply on him because he has been the most vigorous (I would say argumentative) voice in all of these debates. He literally hates that the Andreas Lubitz page exists, and he has declared war on the entire issue. His responses represent a total warfare mindset. I hope he stays on WP, but I hope he tones down the rhetoric and style. My response focuses on him because of the way he responds to differing points of view. Andreas Lubitz is a very notable figure, who caused a very notable event through an act of suicide and murder. His life and motivations deserve to be studied on an encyclopedic level in a way that cannot be done by the press. This is what Wikipedia is all about. Ok, I'm up to my 5 cents at this point. Thank you for taking my views as a long-time editor to heart. Juneau Mike (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Eduardo (rapper)

Eduardo (rapper) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Due to numerous BLP violations within the history, article should have been deleted followed by creation of the redirect. This seemed to be the consensus. Additionally, WP:A9 of A Fantástica Fábrica de Cadáver album would be in order. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 13:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, some of the negative material is referenced to a Portuguese-language source. I do not read this language, but does it back up the claims that were made? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC).