Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

See Also

I think that reference to "Accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family" should be deleted because this accident could have happened with any other brand and model of aircraft as long as it complies with the reinforced cockpit door system.

What i expect from the "See Also" section are references to similar accidents or incidents. See, for example, Air France Flight 447 85.245.37.165 (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree with removing the 'Accidents and incidents' reference. However, Suicide by pilot might be a reasonable addition to the section. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Summary

Suggest that the infobox summary is changed to Under Investigation to remove speculation until the official report says otherwise. MilborneOne (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The infobox summarises the lede. Why is it speculation in the infobox, specifically? Alakzi (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Now that they've found the flight data recorder there is little uncertainty. The infobox has been the subject of edit warring and disputes, it should only be changed if its language matches BEA statements. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, best to keep with the BEA statements. Keiiri (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Captain's drink drugged

FWIW, it's been reported in The Sun (a non-RS) that the captain's coffee had been drugged with a diuretic. As this makes sense in that it would get him out of the cockpit to use the loo, are there any RSs reporting same? Obviously if this had happened, then it might be possible for the investigation team to confirm via pathological tests of body parts. This sort of info might come out in the Final Report, but that is many months away yet. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any report from The Sun, only from other sources such as this one. It says "Lubitz, 27, surfed on-line for diuretic drugs before his murder-suicide at the controls of the Germanwings Airbus 320. ... The latest information comes from Lubitz's computer seized by Dusseldorf prosecutors shortly after the disaster, according to reports in Germany." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: - I meant it was printed in the (ahem) "newspaper". Mjroots (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
(That's a very brave admission, Mj. Hope you enjoyed the chips.) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
No chips today, I'm on a diet (it's called the "don't like it diet" - If I don't like it, I don't eat it! ).
I tried a diet earlier, at about twenty past three. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Good source of protein! Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The Qatarday source is sourced from the Daily Mirror, which is as non-reliable as The Sun. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
According to the Daily Telegraph, the reports originally originated with a Cologne based newspaper, the Express, which I see is part of the M. DuMont Schauberg grouping of companies. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I see The Daily Telegraph is careful to use a question mark in its headline. But that looks like a good source. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The Torygraph is a RS, although the German original seems to be a tabloid. Would suggest caution for the moment. Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge from Andreas Lubitz

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Merge, narrowly, based on the preponderance of policy-based arguments. Ultimately the persuasive point is WP:BIO1E and the fact that Lubitz was mentally ill, which raises special questions about careful handling in order to remain consistent with Wikipedia's ethos. Comparisons with others are valid only up to a point: there are entire books on the life of Lee Harvey Oswald, for example. In sensitive cases like this, we should not be teasing a biography out of often sensationalist news reports, there is a difference between what is in the public interest and what interests the public. Guy (Help!) 07:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not merge. As time goes by more information on his condition(s) will emerge. Also for the record: one event in which he committed 149 murders. Shir-El too 16:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:ONEEVENT. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Do not merge. Potentially one of the most heinous crimes of the 21st century, the infamous deeds of this individual pass any criteria for notability. WWGB (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Deeds? It was one deed. Of course the deed was notable, but that does not mean the perpetrator is separately notable. His name will probably forgotten soon, remembered only as the mentally-disturbed pilot who deliberately crashed Germanwings 9525 after locking his colleague out of the cockpit, which this article adequately covers. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • One of the most heinous crimes of the 21st century? I do agree, this is a sad event (and heartbreaking), but I don't think its one of the most heinous crimes. The September 11th attacks seems like the most heinous crime of the 21st century. Even though the crash of Germanwings Flight 9525, the co-pilot is not notable for a separate article due to him only being broadcast on media due to his mentally-disturbed actions. CookieMonster755 (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment result of two previous AfD's was keep. One of the recurring comments in the AfD discussions was that this event could spur different psychological evaluations during pilot training - if so, enduring coverage is likely, and the article has merit on its own to documents how the case is examined for signs to look for in troubled pilots. -- Aronzak (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
We don't create/keep articles on the basis that future coverage is arguably likely. We do it if enduring coverage has already been established. The event is certainly historic, but the perpetrator will only ever be mentioned in connection with the event. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not merge - Two AfD discussions has resulted in Keep. This merging discussion should be swiftly ended.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge - I can see no need for separate articles. There is nothing that could be included in the other article that would be out of place in this one. There is no danger of a combined article becoming unmanageably large. Unjustifiable nightmare keeping the two articles coordinated and in agreement. Skeptical of users who call for a swift end to discussions that might produce a result they wouldn't like. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge later The first discussion was a bit of a bad call, the second one fell apart just because the first one did, but that's the sort of thing that happens when things are recent. The news gets speculative and hyperfocused, and Wikipedia follows suit. I say give it at least a couple of weeks. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not merge: A lot of personal information will soon be available on the guy that might seem irrelevant to the crash article but perfectly relevant to the Lubitz article. The crash article should only mention what the guy did, a brief description of what the investigation sees as his reasons and anything else relevant to the crash. The Lubitz article can mention all that in more detail and cover more of his personal life and life outside and irrelevant to the crash. He is significant enough to have his own article due to the sheer magnitude of what he did.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rihazrihazrihaz (talk • contribs)
Yes, what he did that day had magnitude, which carries over to him. But that doesn't do anything for his keenness on running marathons, his mother's piano teaching, being depressed six years ago or where he went to school. That's still mundane and not directly connected to the thing that had the magnitude. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait and see. At the moment, a separate article still looks justified for now, but if the article does not grow further in the next couple of weeks, it might well be worth considering a merge. Let's wait a month or so, and see what happens. -- The Anome (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not merge: the bio article has enough text and refs for background info that wouldn't belong in the crash article that it should remain separate. - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, do not merge for now. While it may emerge that all relevant details of this man are included on the accident page and then we can have this discussion, we don't know yet whether this is the case. In fact, more details about both the accident and the man himself are coming out daily. Why are we having this discussion three times in the first week? Give it some time, nominators, no rush, at least wait for the investigation to be over. And why didn't this last nominator follow procedure and create this discussion on AfD? Rwxrwxrwx, please open a new case there now and move this entire discussion into it.Prhartcom (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
There have already been AFDs for Lubitz, but no serious merge discussion. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not merge Andreas Lubitz and Germanwings are not one and the same item. BlueAndWhite123 (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Very true, but no one is proposing to merge Andreas Lubitz with Germanwings. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not merge. This article is obviously notable enough to stand on its own and should not be merged with the germanwings article, since they do not overlap in all of the information. Some info is only necessary in this article, like his birthday etc.... Rayukk (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not merge. At the moment, and until further details have emerged, he should be considered separately notable in a similar way as Hamza al-Ghamdi is to United Airlines Flight 175 and Wail al-Shehri is to American Airlines Flight 11, for example (and the rest of them). He cannot be considered a terrorist in any conventional contemporary sense, however, his actions, or lack thereof, have caused the death of many people on board an aircraft. EP111 (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment in addition to my reply - Note also per WP:ONEEVENT: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. EP111 (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge – Andreas Lubitz is completely non-notable outside the context of the Germanwings crash. Almost all of its biography is irrelevant even in relation to the event. There's no separate article for the Kouachi brothers, for example; only a brief biography as part of Charlie Hebdo shooting, and what they did is not less heinous than what Lubitz did. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Note I have already !vote'd below, but saying an event that saw the murder of 12 (Charlie Hebdo) during a mass shooting and the murder of 149 in a deliberate plane crash is on the same level of heinous seems a little naive. We have a page on Andreas Lubitz for the same reason we have a page on Gameel Al-Batouti, for EXACTLY the same reason. Juneau Mike (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The Gameel Al-Batouti article is just as pointless; the relevant information (not that much) could be merged into EgyptAir Flight 990, the rest is just irrelevant (his father's job: who cares?) or a repetition of the accident article. As a side note, heinousness is not measured by the number of victims. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge – Andreas Lubitz is completely non-notable except for the Germanwings crash.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per one event. CookieMonster755 (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not merge - strong keep as stand-alone Lubitz has become very notable for his actions in this disaster. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed far less people than did Lubitz, and yet they have an in depth article. This is just one example. A similar article to Andreas Lubitz is Gameel Al-Batouti, alleged to be responsible for the crash of Egypt Air 990, and Al-Batouti has his own article here. Lubitz is very notable, both for his actions, and for the legacy of his actions as noted above. Juneau Mike (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge - There is no need for a separate article, especially if we consider the tragedy is closely linked to the actions of the co-pilot. He was no celebrity, he became infamous because of the event, and the primary focus should be the event. - 179.153.241.50 (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge - Totally merge. If you want to keep an article about him, then I'm going to create one for Captain Patrick Sondheimer. --109.49.229.30 (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait - This is still a very recent case. We cannot yet know if seperate articles are needed. Although I would incline towards merging these. Ceosad (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes there will be a ton of material in a short time that should suggest tat the one event rule will apply here, but I suspect he will have a greater legacy over the long term in overhauling airline rules and regulations on dealing with mental illness in the cockpit. We all know that mental illness is incredibly hard to deal with, and a few years ago, companies in Europe started allowing for pilots to take anti-depressants to deal with this. I would suggest waiting and seeing what comes out in the next few months, as it is likely that this will result in some serious discussion about how airlines should be screening for this, as well as helping their workers function at the highest-possible way possible in the process. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
All true, Kevin, but whatever the legacy will be, it won't belong to any Andreas Lubitz article. It will be the legacy of the event, not of the person, and will likely be easy to cover in the accident article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge - relevant info into this article and summarize accordingly. Being a "keen runner" and working "part-time at a Burger King" is not notable or relevant information about this individual. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
"Working part-time at Burger King" is very notable and relevant information regarding the background of pilots of the best airlines in the world. It tells us that the kind of people who are suitable and selected to become airline pilots are the kind of people that would otherwise do part-time work at Burger King. This is very relevant in the case of this pilot and pilots in general. BlueAndWhite123 (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Truck-drivers and pilots of the best airlines in the world are one and the same: any truck driver could be a part-time worker at Burger King and also a pilot at any of the best airlines of the world. I am perfectly happy with that. Flying a Dreamliner is just the same as driving a truck - all that is required is different training. I am perfectly happy with that. BlueAndWhite123 (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge I cannot see that the perpetrator is notable for anything else other than this. There's no sense having two articles which are basically going to duplicate each other.--5 albert square (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge - I reckon there's no need for a separate article because there is one event that took place.--Infinite0694 (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, do not merge per Juneau Mike. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 04:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge All notability criteria that support maintaining a separate article for the flight's first officer are based on a currently ongoing investigation. I consider that until the investigation concludes that the first officer was the primary cause we should keep all relevant information in one place. This decision should be revisited when the official investigation report is released. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge at this moment. If the flight data recorder is found, confirming it was actually Lubitz (or if the investigation proves his guilt otherwise), then I'd support having a separate article, like Gameel Al-Batouti. Brandmeistertalk 09:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think ... merge per WP:ONEEVENT. The guy is not reknowned for anything else than the air crash. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge Whatever the legacy of this incident I've no doubt the name of the co-pilot will be forgotten and it will be the report into the accident that specifies recommendations. Mattojgb (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not merge – enough biographical info & interwiki links for separate article. --Bazi (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bazi: The presence of info does not grant notability. ― Padenton|✉   17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge He does not warrant an article of his own; and no way in hell will anyone be able to produce enough material to produce a biography. Besides, supporters of a separate article are all giving him, what motivated him to crash the plane in the first place. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 11:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not Merge for the following policy-based reasons:
Per WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP1E] does not apply in this case: “WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people” (Revised per WP:BDP)
Per WP:BIO1E: “If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate”
JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@JoeSperrazza: Keep reading down to WP:BDP.

"Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime."

― Padenton|✉   17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not Merge there is an avalanche of publicity about this person on media outlets as well as online social networking sites.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jeanne boleyn: Social networking sites are not WP:RS, no one cares what random people are saying about the incident. ― Padenton|✉   17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I see you conveniently ignored the first part of my sentence; besides academia, it is the media which typically confers notability on an individual by the amount of coverage it gives to the person.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Find me one WP:RS that provides thorough coverage of Andreas Lubitz (per WP:GNG) without mentioning Germanwings Flight 9525 and I will change my comment. ― Padenton|✉   17:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge initially I agree, the article about Lubitz has the potential to swamp the original article about the loss of flight 9525 but best to merge them meantime. 87.113.71.30 (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge Outside of this extremely tragic event this person is non-notable. 88.165.240.35 (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not merge The fact that The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.[16]

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. crashed the plane on purpose makes him as notable—and infamous—as, say, Charles Whitman, or Andrew Cunahan.TH1980 (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@TH1980: Unconfirmed speculation. Wait for investigation. ― Padenton|✉   17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per the clear applicability of WP:1E. I notice that few of the oppose votes cite any policy. ― Padenton|✉   17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • And actually fewer support votes that cite any policy either. It's not clean on both sides so hopefully whoever closes takes into consideration only the policy based arguments. I assume that this will be closed as no consensus though. Mkdwtalk 19:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge This guy wasn't close to notable until this one event. His name should be a redirect and he should have a section on the crash's page. That's it. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Note re. AFDs: The first one was withdrawn and thus closed while the second one was closed as "too early for re-nomination" and thus flawed (IMO). Two procedural closings do not endorse a valid "keep" (or "delete") per policies.--TMCk (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not merge - Has had a lasting impact on aviation procedures, influenced policy on airlines, the German Wings article is in no-way the type of article to have a mini-biography section . This is a biography which our readers would be curious about, let alone potential criminology students later on which as academia the main point for a encyclopedia. What policy is a merge based on? WP:ONEEVENT doesn't imply due to the impact he has had on his industry plus the media coverage, like him or not i think most of the merge argument is based on the WP:IDONTLIKEIT policy . Like it or not this man has left a lasting impact on the aviation industry and arguably the world, to be referenced in cases like this for years, like Osama bin Laden for terrorism and Ted Bundy for serial killing or D. B. Cooper for air piracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuzzyG (talk • contribs) 19:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@GuzzyG: He has not had a lasting impact on aviation procedures nor policy. The incident has. Without this incident he had no impact on the airline, nor other airlines. It doesn't matter what our readers would be curious about, that's what tabloid magazines are for. Your argument against WP:ONEEVENT is nonsense, his only impact on aviation and airline policy is because of the one event, which is exactly what ONEEVENT is talking about. Osama bin Laden is notable for things other than 9/11, go look at his article again. Ted Bundy's psychopathology is a topic of study at the FBI, he was on FBI's Most Wanted list for multiple acts. D B Cooper isn't a person, the perpetrator was never identified, and the article is about the one incident, not a person.
― Padenton|✉   19:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Take care to not WP:BLUDGEON. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not merge The pilots who flew some planes into buildings on 9/11 have their own articles, don't they? Are they only notable for one event? —МандичкаYO 😜 19:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
While I agree with your view to not merge, I point out that your argument (and others who've made the same or similar) is not valid, per WP:OTHER. My rationale is per WP:BIO1E: “If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate”. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@JoeSperrazza: I don't think WP:OTHER is always - sometimes it is valid to make a comparison to a parallel article. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Wikimandia: For convenience of other editors, the hijackers seem to have their articles linked in the lead here: Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks
  1. Your argument is WP:OSE, a fallacy. The existence of another article is not grounds for the notability of a separate article for Andreas Lubitz.
  2. Each of these hijackers have received substantially more coverage than Andreas Lubitz, and some participated in other incidents.
  3. Since multiple editors are bringing this up, I hope you will all forgive me for adding a table here, I think it's really the easiest way to present the information, rather than a block of text. 9/11 and Germanwings Flight 9525 are vastly different in multiple ways. (WP:DUH) I've listed some that come to my mind in a table below. This is in no way exhaustive. Some, like the 'Thoroughly investigated' line might change with time, but per WP:CRYSTAL, it's not WP policy to have an article before its time.
So no, 9/11 is a separate discussion. ― Padenton|✉   20:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Padenton: That's nice of you to make a handy table but a lot of what you're writing is a moot point. If you intentionally kill 150 people, you kill 150 people. It makes no difference if you planned it six years in advance or six minutes in advance; or what your reasons were; or whether or not it was not "technically" a hijacking, etc, etc. You've destroyed the same number of lives. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


  • Merge Thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 21:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge as people are attempting to add the same disputed information to both articles resulting in parallel reverts, talk page discussions, etc. An example is that the girlfriend is pregnant. The present Andreas Lubitz article is very small and only contains information that will fit in well in a section of the main Germanwings Flight 9525 article. Initially I was thinking a merge was not needed per WP:BIO1E's “If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate” but this is not the first entry in List of murder–suicides in commercial aviation. Calls for regulatory changes will likely cite EgyptAir Flight 990, LAM Mozambique Airlines Flight 470, along with Germanwings Flight 9525 rather than citing the names of the person(s) believed responsible for the crashes. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge for now I think WP:1E could read either way on this, but for editorial convenience I would keep the bio inside the crash article. As new details emerge, only one article needs to be updated and there is no risk of inconsistency creeping in. We can revisit this question when more is know officially. I suspect the focus of investigation will shift to lapses in cockpit security, pilot screening and the need for periodic mental health evaluations, in which case there will be less reason for a separate bio of one apparently unstable individual who sought notoriety in his suicide.--agr (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not merge I hate to comment in these things by effectively typing "as per xxxx" or just repeating what has already been written. I came here as I just couldn't understand why someone only notable for a single event that has it's own article should have their own. However I have become quite swayed by the WP:ONEEVENT argument (not something I had seen before), in fact I find the guideline quite compelling, and have difficulty in seeing when it would apply if it is found not to in this case.
Considering in particular "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified". There has been significant interest in Lubitz as an individual and his personal back story. The history of this individual suddenly becomes of major importance when we consider that knowing Lubitz's part in the incident may tell us how it happened, but it is not enough to understand it or tell us why. Here we also need to consider the psychological being. This I see as the reason why as far media discourse is concerned Lubitz is almost becoming 'THE' story if he hasn't already.
That aside the 'wait and see' argument could indeed be very valid, if it weren't for the fact that the 'parent' article, from which this becomes an offspring of, wasn't already quite comprehensive and therefore sizeable (though not overly so). Indeed this article itself, as more and more information becomes available grows and is quite able to stand it's own in regard to quantity and quality of content, (I make no assessment of the quality of the prose or style).
I do hope the reason people are against the subject having their own article isn't down to an emotionally clouded ethical response. In my humble opinion that would not be reasoned or ethical in an academic or perhaps rather encyclopaedic sense. --wintonian talk 00:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not merge In my mind, the horrific act that he allegedly performed, has made a directional change in improving air safety and cock-pit management. Lubitz's action directly influenced that improvement even though history has recorded similar tragedies that never influenced a change in policy. For Wikipedia to be the informative and intellectual resource that it so rightly is, Lubitz does require a separate article just for the fact that some airlines, before they received directives from governing bodies, have implemented immediate cock-pit management changes to make sure that this, and similar tragedies, are greatly reduced in the future. And I am pretty sure that there will be television documentaries relating to Lubitz and the tragedy screened as time goes on. Caulkie (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, someone says the action had significant consqequences, while trying to say the actor is notable. Many people directly affected how this played out, from the company that put the plane in the air, to the crew who manned it, to the passengers who filled it. Had it been just Lubitz alone in a small plane (or even a large one), doing the exact same thing he did here, it wouldn't exist on Wikipedia and just be a blip in the news. The whole incident is the important thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I stand corrected. It's possible a solo plane suicide would be on Wikipedia, like 2002 Tampa plane crash or 2010 Austin suicide attack. But those pilots don't have articles, despite their "large role", and 42 somewhat similar American suicides don't have any article. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge for now Per WP:CRIME, "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha3031 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:CRIME goes on to say; "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: [...] The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy". Additionally I wasn't aware anyone had been charged or that a trial had occurred or even been scheduled. As such I'm afraid I don't think WP:CRIME is relevant here. --wintonian talk 10:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
To add to the other replies, 1, There is an appropriate existing article and 2, There was a criminal event, so I don't see why WP:CRIME should not apply.
Your reading is very selective. "...in connection with a criminal event or trial...". Surely you're not suggesting that no criminal event occurred because there is no trial. The very changes that many people are citing to justify their opposition to this merge are predicated on a presumption of mass murder by Lubitz. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Why not? Do Posthumous trials not happen in Germany? Are the dead (speculation that is yet to be confirmed) not innocent until proven guilty? Either way the execution of any alleged crime is unusual, possibly not unique but not far off. Perhaps inquest verdicts equivalent to unlawful killing might be enough? But then were not there either and won't be until a report is published - I doubt.--wintonian talk 11:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The dead aren't automatically presumed innocent. We can and generally should, but there's no requirement. Those sorts of laws and policies are meant to protect reputations and rights, which the dead don't use. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, but these things go have implications not just for the deceased but also for family members and others close to them, and although I wouldn't exactly say that peoples reputations is a concern of Wikipedia, we of course don't set out to destroy or damage them. Anyway I've drifted a little off topic here as my concearn here wasn't really anything to do with the ethics of the presumtion of innocence with regards to deceased persons, rather the application of Wiki guidelines and their relevance. --wintonian talk 12:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
We both missed another important phrase from your WP:CRIME excerpt: Where there are no appropriate existing articles. In this case, there is an appropriate existing article, and this is it. Therefore that clause does not apply. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It applies, it just doesn't support an article. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Not too off-topic, no worries. That guideline applies here. I'd just give less weight to the last BLP part, and more to whether he was famous first (clearly no), and whether his motivation or execution is unusual enough to be the impetus for documentation of the event. I think it's clear this event was notable before the co-pilot was ever mentioned. The dashed off part, "or has otherwise been considered noteworthy" is the tough part to interpret, as it's astoundingly vague. I think arguing about it is inherently doomed to go in circles, forever.
If we consider the guideline, I strongly suggest not considering that part. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
"is the tough part to interpret, as it's astoundingly vague. I think arguing about it is inherently doomed to go in circles, forever." I think I'm going to have to concede this particular point, and this part of the guideline really does need refining. However my vote remains on the strength of my substantive argument and that very few (if any) media sources are refering to this as a crime, that may happen in time, but has yet to pass. - I'm off to lick my wounds. --wintonian talk 12:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge until further information The major part of the flight incident was just him. There isn't really much to the crash other than him. Indeed there is the thing about the trajectory change and investigation, but that hasn't happened yet. pie3141527182 (talk) 14:12, March 31, 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per above, especially User:pie3141527182's argument. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge This is very similar to Adam Lanza. Redirect bio to the mass murder/suicide. --DHeyward (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the 9/11 hijackers - I seem to notice comments citing the existence of articles about the 9/11 hijackers as logical ground for this Lubitz article. That's a fallacy, backed by WP:OTHER. The hijacker's actions were politically motived, where their act literally shaped global politics for all eternity. On top of that, they produced a history trail, with content to justify the need of separate articles. Politically, there is a clear difference between the pre-9/11 world vs the post-9/11 world. In the case of Lubitz, his history is generally personal material. We have to be careful about social media reactions justifying the need of separate articles. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

If you purposely crash a commercial airliner and kill 150 people, what difference does it make whether you did it because of a) political beliefs b) your religious beliefs, c) your mental state, or d) none of the above? The end result is exactly the same: you've killed 150 people, devastated endless lives and communities, and there are probably going to be some airline industry changes. If you're a serial killer and you kill 10 people during a two-month spree, nobody would argue notability, but kiling 150 people is not noteworthy because it happened all at once. Nice. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: your entire argument is an Appeal to emotion. Do you have any policy supporting your position that the articles should be separate? Serial killers are different: first, it's multiple acts so there is significantly more coverage to put in their article from each of the cases. They are also a frequent topic of study by law enforcement organizations and academics in criminology, adding scholarly research on the topic. A 2 month spree of murders means 2 months of heavy news coverage. This on the other hand, has nothing to keep the public interested. A single tragedy, over before the news was initially reported. The person alleged to be responsible is dead, there will be no trial. There will be an investigation, a payout from the airline to victims families in attempt to compensate them for their infinite loss, and when that's done, people will move onto the next big story as soon as it comes. ― Padenton|✉   04:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, on the account he killed 149 people. That makes him notable per WP:NOTABILITY. How many people can you think of who have killed 149 people? Off the top of your head. Ready, set, go. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: 1. 'killed' is alleged until the investigation is complete, please read WP:BDP. 2. My inability to name people who are known solely for killing 149 people doesn't support separate notability. If anything, it's a point in favor of merging per WP:1E, because there is no reliable coverage independent of the incident, which is what WP:1E is about. ― Padenton|✉   04:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
As for notable mass killers, at least 2,400 people have been killed by CIA drone strikes in Pakistan alone in ten years. That's an average of 342 per Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, over twice as many as this guy. By 2012, six of them were deadlier than 19 hijackers, globally (not counting the tens of thousands of non-robotic or semi-automated killings).
But they did other things, too, so all have articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of spies, crashes, unknown motives and unpunishable killing, I think we should name this recent story GateGate, should it exist at all outside of the main one. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not merge This forum shopping is ridiculous. This is the third discussion on exactly the same topic in just four days. Enough is enough. More to the point, concerning policies. WP:ONEEVENT clearly does not apply for a highly notable individual in a highly notable incident, as per WP:BIO1E. We have an article on Gavrilo Princip, notable for just one important incident. We have an article on Lee Harvey Oswald notable for just one important incident (and like Lubitz, dead before any trial). We have an article on David Koresh, notable for just one important incident and also dead in that incident. The list could of similar examples go on and on. There is a large number of precedents, showing that simply "voting delete" and call on policy support in WP:ONEEVENT does not hold. Jeppiz (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jeppiz: Imagine that, both of them were ended prematurely without allowing a consensus to form. ― Padenton|✉   15:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Padenton: With all due respect, drop the battleground mentality. This far, you've seen fit to comment and question no less than nine comments from people who disagree with your opinion. You have stated your own opinion. Try to accept that other Wikipedia users can hold a different opinion than you. There is no need whatsoever for you to comment on any user who doesn't share your views, and it's not helpful for the discussion.Jeppiz (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jeppiz: And I have stated my reasoning fairly in each of those, there is no battleground here. Yes, I am commenting a fair bit here (and it's even more obvious because of my distinctive signature). Seeing as how your argument in favor of keep here was entirely WP:NOTAGAIN, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as well as a falsehood about previous deletion discussions (neither of which resulted in a 'keep' consensus); I'd say reminding you of what actually happened in those deletion discussions is warranted. Though I admit I could've worded it more politely. For that, my apologies. I will attempt to do better in the future, and I hope that you will focus on the argument at hand rather than attacking me for my activity. I did skip over your OSE argument though, so let me get to that now while I'm here.
  1. WP:BIO1E explicitly says "The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." It explicitly states "the assassins of major poliltical leaders."
  2. Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand which started World War 1...if starting the largest war in recorded history isn't a significant role, I don't know what is. No one here has proposed the deletion of Gavrilo Princip (Or Adolf Hitler for that matter).
  3. Lee Harvey Oswald, again, a major political leader assassination, this time, US President John F. Kennedy.
  4. David Koresh was not a political assassination, he was a leader of a cult and responsible for a 51 day siege between his armed followers and the ATF, FBI, and National Guard. There are also 2 notable documentaries covering him and the incident, one of which was nominated for an academy award and won the sundance film festival.
I really don't see how you can compare the notability of a plane crash with any of these (even ignoring the fact that they're WP:OSE). ― Padenton|✉   22:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't lie about me or others. You claim there's a "falsehood" in my comment in that I said previous discussions resulted in keep. Kindly point out where I said that, or retract your accusation of falsehood. Furthermore, I fear you apply far too literal an interpretation. WP:BIO1E gives Princip and the assassination of major political leaders as an example, not as the only possibility. It's also unclear why you feel Koresh's case to be different, both Koresh and Lubitz have received an enourmous amount of media coverage. WP:BIO1E means that being implicated in one event is not enough for an article (we won't have an article on any of Lubitz's victims unless they were famous for other reasons), but when causing a major event and receiving lots of media coverage not only in the event but also lots of articles about the actual person, then an article is warrated. It applies to Princip, to Oswald, to Koresh and to Lubitz.Jeppiz (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jeppiz: The only reason to bring up 2 previous discussions as a support for your vote of No Merge, is the implication that they show a consensus. Neither does. Yes, WP:BIO1E gives Princip as an example, not as the only possibility. However, your argument, using him as an example, relies on Andreas Lubitz having equal or greater notability than Princip does.
Koresh received news coverage throughout his time as a cult leader, and then coverage over the investigation and trial for statutory rape, followed by a nearly 8 week siege where he led armed cult members in defending against the FBI, DEA, and National Guard, right before he murdered most of the members of his cult. There were several trials convicting the members who survived for what they did under his leadership. There are multiple notable documentaries on him, one of which won an academy award and the sundance film festival. There are numerous scholarly publications on him.
The entirety of the coverage on Andreas Lubitz: The incident happened last Monday. 7 days of gossip, tabloids, and speculation. Most of it has been trivia or unconfirmed speculation. Take a look at the talk archives. A few facts here and there, but every thing that's actually relevant and confirmed is already in the flight article. The story that the media seems to have consensus on is that he was depressed and decided to end it all for him and the passengers.
A tragedy, yes, but it reaches neither the notability nor the substantial coverage of any of the above. He had no notability before the incident, last Sunday nobody in the world knew his name, and now this is the only thing he will ever be notable for.
This is not substantial coverage. This is WP:15M. You claim that there are articles about the actual person. As I said to another editor, if you can find me one WP:RS that gives substantial coverage about Andreas Lubitz without talking about Germanwings Flight 9525, My WP:HEY will have been met. ― Padenton|✉   23:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, you've stated your case. It relies mainly on your personal interpretations, unsupported by any policy. I am not aware of any rule saying that Princip is the lower limit and that everybody included must have "equal or greater notability than Princip does". Entirely your interpretation. The same thing goes for your invoking of WP:15M, by which you imply Lubitz will soon be forgotten. It's futile to speculate about the future, but as you do it, I'll do it as well and say that your speculation is highly unlikely.Jeppiz (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jeppiz: I didn't say that Princip is the lower limit. You used him as an example of pages Wikipedia also has in your argument for Lubitz's notability, which implies that you think Andreas Lubitz is just as notable or more notable than Princip. As for 15M, we shall see. Is that ignoring of my request a no to you providing a single WP:RS that discusses Lubitz without mentioning the flight, to back up your claim that Lubitz has received "an enormous amount of media coverage" "about the the actual person" ― Padenton|✉   15:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to discuss when you continue to make up rules that don't exist. I'm sure there's no article about Lubitz that doesn't mention the crash, no article about Koresh that doesn't mention Waco, no article about Breivik that doens't mention Utoya, no article about Oswals that doesn't mention Kennedy and so on. It doesn't make one bit of a difference. I'm more interested in the actual policies than in your personal interpretations of them. You've made your point and I've made mine, I don't think your opinion builds on any policies, you no doubt disagree. I don't see the discussion advancing so I end it here to avoid soapboxing. Jeppiz (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
No consensus It seems pretty clear that this discussion will never reach consensus. Maybe my eyes played tricks on me, but I count 18 merge !votes plus 5 more related to merge, for a total of 23. There are 21 !votes to keep, plus 2 for "wait and see", again, a total of 23. We are at a stalemate, and discussion is a good thing, as is consensus. But it seems pretty clear that consensus will not ever be achieved. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
How many were based on arguments to avoid, or cleanly rebutted? How many are conditional on notable stuff potentially being discovered later? Those don't hold the same weight as policy-based "votes". If this one isn't closed early, the stalemate will break. Be patient. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Michaelh2001: See WP:NOTAVOTE. The arguments to merge are mostly backed on policy, such as WP:1E, WP:BDP, WP:CRIME. Few of the arguments to keep have even mentioned policy. Most, including your own, are flawed arguments based on notability fallacies, such as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:ITSINTHENEWS, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:15M; falsehoods claiming 2 AfDs resulted in keeps (neither did in fact, one was withdrawn by nominator before allowing consensus to form, and one was procedurally closed. Neither resulted in a 'keep' consensus; also, even if true, it would be an example of the WP:NOTAGAIN notability fallacy). I may have missed one or two, but the only policy-backed argument in favor of not merging that I saw are by JoeSperrazza and Wintonian, who both made their arguments based on the "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." exception in WP:BIO1E. ― Padenton|✉   17:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
To begin with, you can drop the bludgeoning tone of your rebuttals. It isn't necessary to talk down to other good faith editors simply because they do not agree with you. Just because there is a re-direct for "other crap exists" doesn't mean you should use it to get snarky. 2, Just because people have, in good faith, disagreed with myself and others on whether or not this article should be redirected, does not mean we are using "flawed arguments" or have been using fallacies and have been soundly refuted or however you put it, etc., any more than those agreeing with the anti-merge side have soundly defeated the idea of a merge. We are having a debate/discussion, and I haven't seen anyone lay down the so-called Trump Card on the other side. I have seen snark creep its way into this discussion, and that is unfortunate. I have also seen a general lack of consensus. Perhaps I "started all of this", because it was originally me who took the Andreas Lubitz page off of a procedural redirect that occurred without discussion. In my revert summary, I stated that the idea of AfD or redirect or in this case a merge, should be discussed first. I never dreamed in a million years that there would be well over 100,000 visitors to this page in a few days, or that we would be on the third discussion about it. I simply believed, and still strongly so, that Andreas Lubitz and his actions are very notable, and will have lasing impact. Perhaps the first 2 AfDs ended prematurely, perhaps not. (I say not, but I digress) I have seen many of these debates, and I believe this stand-alone article will survive. But that is just my opinion. But lets drop the snark, the frustration, and the bludgeoning, etc. We are all acting in good faith, and are all better than that. Thanks! My 2 cents. Juneau Mike (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Michaelh2001: This is not bludgeoning. I am perfectly happy to consider other points of view and if you've actually read my comments you'll notice that I have. Just because you disagree, it does not mean you are using flawed arguments. This is correct. The problem is the majority of the above do not merge posts are using flawed arguments, as I and another editor have shown above. I will not deny that there are also people voting merge without citing policy or making a reasoned argument. You are perfectly welcome to take the Lubitz page off a procedural redirect (given it wasn't the result of consensus), per WP:BRD. That's why we are discussing here. ― Padenton|✉   15:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge Once again WP:BIO1E being applied incorrectly and due to this person's involvement in a major event, actually states a standalone article may be appropriate. I should remind those participating that this isn't a popularity vote, especially those not citing any policy based rationales. Mkdwtalk 19:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
And I'll remind participants (not you in particular) that "may" doesn't mean "should" or "shall", but "can" or "might". Whether to disregard the "general rule" depends on whether there is exceptional reason to. Simply saying the guideline allows exceptions isn't cause itself to make an exception. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge A murderer is not automatically entitled to to be enshrined in an encyclopedia article. It is adequate to cover him in the article about the mass murder. He is utterly unknown except for this one heinous action. Edison (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
In what way is an article an enshrinement? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. This despicable man's actions have had significant affect on aviation practices so far, looking at the Suicide by pilot article he has performed a act (Crashing a plane with 100+ casualties) only done 2 other times, the media have significant coverage far beyond the crash (his mental health, his home life, what his motivations may be) this is a huge part of information relating to him which would clog up the crash article. WP:BIO1E which states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one", which would apply in this case as he is the main reason the plane crashed as without him this would not have happened ala no significant act, him doing a despicable act is not a valid reason or we'd have no articles on criminals. GuzzyG (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
That significant action is this article's topic. If nobody had booked or boarded the plane, his role would also have been insignificant. The whopping three paragraphs in Lubitz' article are about the size of every other section here, so would fit in nicely. Subarticles are usually split for size reasons, since truly notable people typically have more than a handful of notable facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:BIO1E The best example for this policy is the Rodney King event, without him there's no beating ala no event. George Holliday (witness) filmed it but without the filming the beating is still gonna happen so he played a small role. At least that's how I interpret WP:ONEEVENT, either way this is a type of attack that has not happened during social media times and i can only think that people would want to read about him and by having it clogged with the main article is a disservice to our readers, some would want to read about the crash while others want to read about his psychopathology, due to the policy this action has imposed having the article is unlikely to cause a copycat which is some peoples concern as two pilots are now required at all times in most airlines. I see him as a despicable man whos actions on that plane have caused perceptions to change and now the media is starting to report on things that have no effect on the crash (like his girlfriends pregnancy). Yes he wanted infamy but the media gave that to him more then we ever could with an article, no matter if it's separate or not he still has his name here, i just don't see that as a reason to Merge.GuzzyG (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Rodney King also had quite a bit written about his post-beating life, and the video became a notable angle of its own. He was a drunk driver, a brutality victim, a viral celebrity, a poster boy, a plaintiff and a drowned man. Lubitz was a pilot, with one notable flight.
In the ideal Lubitz section, readers could read everything they can in a separate article, without being "disserviced" by having to jump pages. If they only want to read about him and type him into the search bar, his old article will be redirected to this section. Those who only want to read about the crash can skip that section.
Currently, there's more "clogging", as we repeat stuff already mentioned here.
The media grabs whatever pointless detail they can, and spins it into a feature story or headline ending in a question mark, because this is a trending topic, and they need clicks to survive. We use them as sources, but we have an entirely different mission, as an encyclopedia, and aren't meant to repeat everything they note. Those who want the sort of speculation that might fill six or seven paragraphs can easily find it in the proper place, which isn't here. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No merge - The event is significant, and the person's role in it qualifies under WP:PERP #2, "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual". Suicide by jet, taking 150 people with him, is not run-of-the-mill. Tarc (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since a lot of people are claiming his role in the WP:1E is a major one, see WP:CRIME. There is still nowhere near enough information to provide a separate article for Lubitz. It will effectively be a duplicate article of the Germanwings Flight 9525 and forever a stub otherwise.

    A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size.

    ― Padenton|✉   16:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Check WP:CRIME number 2, which fits him quite well, "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual" considering this incidence is the third with over 100 casualties i'd say the execution is quite unusual. His article is currently rated at start-class, which would rule out staying a stub forever.GuzzyG (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No Merge: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." exception in WP:BIO1E. Since mental health at contributed to this tragedy and the co-pilot's actions has had aftereffects such as some airlines now have the 2 pilot rule. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No merge - Lee Harvey Oswald and Osama Bin Laden have their own articles. Unless this article can include his personal life section (a major factor to his behavior): "Lubitz had "a patchy relationship" for seven years with live-in girlfriend, Kathrin Goldbach, who was letting her pregnancy news from two weeks ago "sink in," knew of his medical problems but "not the extent," and knew about his affair with a flight attendant, Maria.<ref name=DailyMail-Personal>{{cite web|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3021179/Germanwings-pilot-told-live-lover-having-affair-airline-stewardess-weeks-crashing-jet-French-Alps.html|title=Germanwings pilot 'told his live-in lover he was having an affair with an airline stewardess weeks before crashing jet into the French Alps'|first=John|last=Hall|date=April 1, 2015|publisher=''Daily Mail''|accessdate=April 2, 2015}}</ref>
    Oswald and bin Laden both had notable deaths themselves, after their notable crimes, and did notable things between. Lubitz sandwiched everything into this one short event. Everyone's life is a major factor in their behaviour. The only one, you could say. We don't need an entire article to say he cheated on a pregnant girlfriend, was depressed six years ago, and nobody knows why he crashed the plane. Arguably noteworthy, but undeniably a short story. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge - Other CFIT/Murder-suicide pilots do not have their own articles (the 9/11 hijackers are a special case) so why should this guy? He's only notable for having crashed a plane. --Zerbey (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Gameel Al-Batouti You were saying? a suicide by pilot that kills over 100 people has happened two times for sure and one other time allegedly the onlyother for sure one has his own articleGuzzyG (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No Merge per previously cited WP:1E and WP:CRIME. Furthermore, his article is a developing story which will emerge much more slowly than the initial crash investigation. There will be a significant amount of media coverage in the future. Simply put, even if a separate article is not deemed necessary in the immediate heat of the plane crash investigation, it will later. Group29 (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No Merge per WP:PERP. his crime is very unusual and has only possibly happened once or twice before in the history of planet earth. --Wikireader41 (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
"Where there are no appropriate existing articles", we consider that part of PERP. Like Gary McKinnon. No article on his "biggest military hack of all time", but its oddness (and his continuing to do things) got him a page. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
"The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual" under WP:PERP number two, which would fit Andreas. GuzzyG (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:PERP only applies "Where there are no appropriate existing articles". Germanwings Flight 9525 does exist, and is appropriate. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge - no notability outside this one event, so anything not pertaining to this event in a separate article would basically just be filler fluff. Also, this article would be improved by a fuller background to Lubitz which would render a separate article a needless duplicate. danno_uk 20:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge, the overlap between the two is going to be almost 100%. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge — this individual is notable merely for his involvement in this apparent intentional downing of an airplane. He is adequately covered, by name and with what minimal detail is necessary, in the article on the airliner crash. Does not require a separate article to cover him. Moreover, set's (yet another) bad precedent where the Wikipedia Foundation uses donated resources to host articles on its servers that essentially honor and memorialize person who commit heinous crimes, which can act as an incentive to others who would want to be memorialized in such a way. N2e (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge - It is speculated that Lubitz' intention after deciding he would commit suicide - or rather, genocide - was to glorify his legacy. To do something he would go down in history for. By having his own page, his heinous, selfish motives come to fruition. Merging the page would be more respectful and appropriate. If Lubitz has his own page, with the same logic, every single victim should have a page too. Merge it. Edfilmsuk (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
On what policy other then WP:IDONTLIKEIT is your reason for merging? I'm sure Hitler wanted the Reich and him to be going on for 1000 years and yet would you argue Wikipedia is carrying out his legacy? "speculation" does not cut it, this is a act only committed two other times and one is not even for certain (might i add the only other confirmed suicide-by pilot the perp has his own article), which makes him a unique figure in criminology and due to his mental state will most likely have people curious about him and would want to read about him. Having a fully sourced and accurate article is the opposite of a memorial, what memorial do you know that lays out someones heinous crimes? The media carried that out more then a Wikipedia article could hope for, all it would do to us is make our readers that want to read about him go somewhere else. Better yet mentioning him in the Germanwings Flight article is carrying out his "goal" too, because under that reasoning he is still immortalized whether it's here or with his own article, let's take his name out of that article as well then. GuzzyG (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge. Clear WP:oneevent, as others have explained in more detail above. Neutralitytalk 00:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge. "While in high school, Lubitz worked part-time at Burger King". Oh seriously... who needs that crap information? I wanted to know more about the pilot in command, however I can't find a photo... sad. --109.49.201.151 (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, do not merge: Quite apart from the moral issues, the two articles would be best served in being kept separate. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
You go for strong keep but don't give a detailed reason? Why are two articles better than one? danno_uk 21:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge: Per everyone else who supports the merging. There could just be an individual section regarding Lubitz's info. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not merge Some people are only known for one event. Keiiri (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Update: 31 users voted Merge, 27 users voted Keep (Oppose merge), 3 users voted "Wait" (or no consensuses). CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Earlier in my keep statement, I had stated that Lubitz deserves his own article as he is significant enough due to the sheer magnitude of what he had done. I had also stated that the main crash article contain nothing but a description of Lubitz's role in the crash while the separate Lubitz article should contain that AND all about his personal life. In reply, a wiki user stated his life outside the crash was perfectly insignificant. My point: How and when does a person's otherwise insignificant life gain significance? When he becomes a significantly famous person. Is Lubitz not a famous person? Yes he is. He has made headlines worldwide with what he has done. Due to what he has done, he has become someone significant and such a significant person automatically has a significant personal life (regardless of how ordinary it may seem) and you can't write all about his personal life in the crash article, can you? No you can't. We need a separate article where we can do that. Rihaz (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Addition: For those of you who keep referring to WP:ONEEVENT, I would like to point out that we should consider the significance of this one event. This is a major crash with high fatalities that has already made changes to the aviation industry and will continue to do so as the investigation progresses and is completed. Due to all the major effects of the crash, in my personal opinion, it goes beyond the "one event" significance level. As a result, it makes Lubitz a very significant person who deserves an article. Rihaz (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Andreas Lubitz

Guy recently made a controversial close in the middle of an AfD process. The contention and debate within this topic suggests that no consensus to merge exists. A third AfD is best way to determine this. WP:BIO1E states When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.. The phrase if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified, which is the case so the further discussion is required. I am going to unmerge pending the outcome of the third AfD. Valoem talk contrib 16:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Valoem: Read WP:NOTAVOTE. Consensus is not based on votes, but on policy. When you make votes not based on an objective evaluation of the content and the policy, your vote doesn't matter. ― Padenton|✉   16:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I found some policy based rational to retain the article. It more of a community decision the article is in a third AfD, and we should allow it to take place accordingly. Valoem talk contrib 16:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Valoem: That policy based rationale was stated in the argument several times, and its applicability was based on a subjective evaluation. As I note you have not done so yet, an unmerge would be improper. If you still feel strongly about this, the correct course of action is to leave it, and post on Guy's talk page asking him to reconsider. If he does not, there are noticeboards you can try. ― Padenton|✉   16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
AfD is still open. The request for close was to allow AfD to determine outcome, I believe editors were expecting no consensus to merge, pending AfD outcome. I have no problem with you merging as long as the AfD is closed, but we cannot speedy merge in the presence of keep votes. Valoem talk contrib 16:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I really agree with Valoem here, I've never seen any article get merged off that unbalanced of a vote, and to say some votes didn't matter because they weren't based on policy... What? All the votes are based on what should make wikipedia stronger and more complete, the policy was likely written by one person or a small group and it's not going to be perfect, as is the case here. A lot of information can go in the Lubitz article that has no real place in this one, and if Dzhokahr Tsarnaev can get an article (even if he was only known for 1 event, which is the argument here), and that guy only killed 4 people. This guy killed 150 including himself. I could be wrong, but I'd wager he's the highest known mass murderer who doesn't have his own article right now. Really embarrassing for wikipedia in my opinion, so I hope someone review this. - Paul Vincent
If that were the case, JzG would have said so, rather than saying "Merge". ― Padenton|✉   17:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah because golly gee, JzG can't *possibly* be wrong! Juneau Mike (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
As JzG suggested, go to Deletion Review. ― Padenton|✉   04:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Andreas Lubitz merged

First the AfD on Andreas artidcle is merged with the reasoning that "A clear consensus for merging", while I do not see any clear consensus for anything. Then the merging discussion here is closed as merge as well, while in fact no consensus can be seen here as well. The smell of deletionism is vivid. Wikipedia has become known to be "ruled by" deletionist and non-inclusionists and this is unfortunately another clear case of this, merging a notable article. Well, now I have said what I wanted and I leave it at that. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The only thing Andreas Lubitz is notable for is the plane crash which is the subject of this article. ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Dzhokahr Tsarnaev is only known for the Boston bombings and he's still got an article, he only killed 4 people, this guy killed 150. Embarrassing Wikipedia, really embarrassing. I'll go read about him somewhere else then since there's barely anything at all here. - Paul Vincent
I am surprised you have never seen this image before http://i.imgur.com/8HmfQqH.png?1, usually used as a joke to describe our deletion process, but you can't deny consensus even if that consensus believes if we have a page on someone that means we are honoring them with a memorial! Although i do agree that oneevent as a guideline is largely incorrect as proven by doing the robot test where if we had set up a high-tech robot to follow that guideline 100% percent to a tee, it'd wipe out one hit wonders, majority of our politicians with just one political office and such, because what is exactly a "event" most people tried arguing that Justin Knapp's 1 Million wikipedia edits was an event, a bad slippery slope in my opinion. It's just a shame seeing majority of my friends go to wikia sites to get information now as most stuff is either merged or seen as fancruft, oh well. Let's get back to building a encyclopedia, full of all human knowledge! GuzzyG (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
What? ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
No need to be condescending but hey, let's just call it a rushed, passionate rant by someone who finds it concerning that increasingly online i am starting to see people link to a wikia and not our encyclopedia, does that not speak of our comprehension? Do you think of the roughly 107 billion people who are estimated to have lived that "ALL notable human knowledge" would leave us with only 4,856,003 articles of which 1,272,766 are covered by WikiProject:Biography. Our enecyclopedia has an unfortunate reputation of WP:ZEALOT editors who try to delete people or things they find abhorrent, which is not what a NPOV means. From my own experiences online and in public we have became known as a unreliable bureaucratic mess which i find disheartening and from which i will fight. Let's not even mention the gender and racial gap and bias. GuzzyG (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've had my fights with religionists on Wikipedia, including Jimbo Wales. The distortion of articles by religionism in this encyclopedia's articles about ancient history is a rather big problem in my view. Is that what you mean, or part of what you mean? ♆ CUSH ♆ 16:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@GuzzyG: Don't go there bro, the list of things people link to online goes far worse than a wikia. Wikia's the least of the worlds problems. ― Padenton|✉   17:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Cush if i had userboxes on my profile yours would match mine quite fine, religionists do come with a heavy POV so it is what apart of what i mean. I am just passionate about biographies as i am actually wanting to get into academic research on people. Of course i don't mean random people of the street, my personal opinion is that a separate bio in these type of events (mass murderers) looks better for style reason but on that point i can concede, i do find it rubbish though that not all of One Direction have articles, which is more what i was meaning and why i am not a fan of certain policies.@Padenton: I agree but i just think the traffic that reads articles on thing would be better going here then all split. I did not mean to be rude (diagnosed aspergers, even though i think it was an inaccurate diagnosis) or anything i just dislike biographies being forced into articles on events best example is Shooting of Michael Brown. Or merged into irrelevant articles like Alice Hathaway Lee Roosevelt is about to be. I just delved into rant territory again but that's the gist of my editing - improving the sometimes dismal biographies and as someone who is curious of unique cases like Mehran Karimi Nasseri it is just disheartening to see a merge - although i do not care if Andrea was merged except for style and size reasons. Basically sorry for what seemed to be passive aggressive comments in my rant about certain policies WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BAND, WP:ONEEVENT, it was unprofessional, my apologies but i do agree with you both generally. Just my OCD and style considerations sometimes crack, ha, sorry. GuzzyG (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Well that was useful. Contribute to a page and then they trash it. Teaches me a lesson not to bother in future. Censorship is alive and well. Obviously the censors know best! 5.150.92.82 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you would be annoyed as you dont appear to have ever edited this, the Andreas Lubitz or any other article on wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not aware of anything significant that was in the other article that is not in this one, so I'm at a loss to understand your claim of "censorship". It's a word we see thrown around a lot, and it's almost always by people who don't know much about Wikipedia editing principles (no offense intended). I encourage you to do some reading and learn about them, and make more contribution. We need all the good editors we can get. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Article ready for GA nomination?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I was thinking of nominating the article for GA assessment, but I wanted your opinion. Should we have a peer review first before nominating it as a GA article, or can I nominate it now, or do you think it's to early for GA nomination? I kind of think it's a little early to nominate it as a good article, but I want your opinion on the matter. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

GA before we've even had a preliminary report come out? The article will have changed drastically by this time next year. Alakzi (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right. We will wait until the investigation is done. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germanwings_Flight_9525/Archive_5&oldid=1142438944"