Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Stübing

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep based on the overwhelming consensus. Questions about changing the article and the title to focus on the event is for editors to hash out on the talk page. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Stübing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article is a WP:BLP1E. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CRIMINAL#2 and the societal and legal impacts it had in Germany. --hroest 20:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  BLP policy cannot be superseded by the notability *guideline*. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 22:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BLP1E criteria 3, which says that a separate article should be avoided if the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented. While Mr. Stübing's crimes may not have been as significant, they certainly seem to be notable and I see this as an analogous case. Since BLP1E requires all three conditions to be met, an article seems justified especially as his crimes themselves do not have one. Highway 89 (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Criteria 3 is predicated upon the existence of an article covering the event. An article on the subject is unjustified precisely because there is no article about the event. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 13:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I concur with Hannes Röst: the event(s) have received significant coverage in reliable sources over more than a brief timespan, and have had a legal impact. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How does BLP policy matter here when he was clearly stated to have been convicted?★Trekker (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  From WP:BLP1E

  Subjects notable only for one event

  • Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
    • If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
    • If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
    • If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.

  
  

  Let's look at what we have here:

  1. Do reliable sources cover the article subject only in the context of a single event? (YES)

  2. Is that person otherwise a low-profile individual? (YES, this is just a German citizen, not a person who is otherwise newsworthy)

  3. Is there an article actually covering the event? (NO, which means nothing from this article can be merged anywhere and also negates the possibility of a separate bio as presented in the Hinkley example)

  I do not see a cogent argument for keeping this article. The BLP policy, of which BLP1E is part, is a bright line. This article fails on all counts. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 22:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If there is an article about this it should be about the controversy and aftermath of the case, which is the notable thing, not the person themselves, this person doesn't have notability besides this event (WP:1E in the notability guideline says The general rule is to cover the event, not the person.). I also think the article does not pass WP:BLP1E - reliable sources only cover this person in the context of a single event, the person appears to remain low profile, and the event was not significant (I interpret a significant event as being something more like a national or globally important event, not just a case of a weird crime, which happen often) --Tristario (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to me that any BLP1e issue could be dealt with by simply adding the word “case” to the article name, but I don’t think that’s necessary here. First, he’s well-known not just for the case, but also for the associated course of conduct which occurred over years. Second, our policy says, “If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual….” But I don’t think that’s likely, because he continues to campaign on the issue. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you give a source for him continuing to campaign on the issue? I saw some unreliable sources like the Daily Mail saying something to that effect, but when I read the articles they didn't appear to mention anything he did in the present and quoted things and recounted things that happened in 2007, the time of the case. But maybe I missed something. I also wouldn't consider the subsequent appeals to be a separate event to the case Tristario (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I saw an unreliable article from 2022 saying, “In Germany right now, Patrick Stubing is fighting to change the law around incest in his homeland.” No source seems to contradict that, so I don’t think we can say it’s likely wrong, though of course we cannot use the unreliable source in the BLP. Even putting all of that aside, he’s well known for the conduct, not just the case, of course people find the conduct more interesting than a bunch of legal details. Add to that the fact that appending the word “case” to the BLP title would be rather trivial and limiting. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We can't use an unreliable source to assume he's not low-profile, especially if reading the source doesn't clearly indicate he's still campaigning for this. And what conduct? It's pretty normal for a legal case and subsequent appeals to involve conduct, it often does. It doesn't stop it from being a BLP1E

  And I don't think we should just add "case" to the name, that would be a poor title. A better title should be chose and the article should be written based around the event, not a person Tristario (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "What conduct", you ask. Of course, having several biological children with his biological sister over a course of years is the conduct distinct from any legal case, with more than one of the offspring having disabilities perhaps due to their messed-up genetics. Yes, legal cases often involve conduct, and conversely conduct often involves legal cases, but here I think that neither one predominates over the other, or else the conduct predominates over the legal case. Moreover, I don't assume he's not low-profile; I simply do not think it's been established that he is both low-profile and is likely to remain so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is indeed conduct, but I wouldn't consider that to constitute a separate event from the legal case. And I think the correct approach when it comes to living people is to assume that someone is low-profile until we have good evidence clearly indicating that isn't the case (per WP:BLP, it's important to get these things right) Tristario (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if we assume he's currently low-profile, you're saying that we should also assume he's likely to remain low-profile, and I just cannot do that based on nothing but unsubstantiated disagreement with an unreliable source. Additionally, the legal conduct does not, in my opinion, predominate over the non-legal aspects. Even putting all of that aside, I don't think an acceptable article title would be significantly different from what it is now. So I've tried to explain my !vote here as best I can. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  you're saying that we should also assume he's likely to remain low-profile If we don't have a solid indication of him being high-profile besides something an unreliable source says and doesn't appear to substantiate very well, yes, we should be assuming this Tristario (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Our Wikipedia guidelines say that the present article and title are okay if: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." You can see at Google Books that this matter has been showing up in a lot of reputable books. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That guideline isn't WP:BLP1E, that's from the notability guideline, WP:BLP, as a policy, takes precedence (The notability guideline also says avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people). The coverage in those books, some of which are quite good sources, does lend more support to the idea that this counts as a significant event, so possibly WP:BLP1E may not apply. I still don't think it's a significant event though, only the initial results seem to mention the subject, and it's mostly in passing. Regardless, I still think we should be covering this as an event, not as a biography, per the guidance in WP:1E Tristario (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that a policy takes precedence over a guideline if they conflict with each other. But often the guideline merely clarifies or supplements the policy. Certainly we should try to read the guideline in a way that doesn’t conflict with the policy, before concluding that it does violate the policy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not seeing a need to twist the guideline to make it something it is not. The policy is very clear to me. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 22:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Even if we assume he's currently low-profile, you're saying that we should also assume he's likely to remain low-profile, and I just cannot do that based on nothing but unsubstantiated disagreement with an unreliable source."

  We absolutely can and SHOULD do so. Another pertinent policy is WP:VERIFY, which states "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced." Any article about this subject should cover the event, not the person. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 22:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What in this BLP is unsourced or poorly sourced? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.