Deletion of Wolfgang Werlé

Comment: The subject was the perpetrator of a reasonably popular murder in Germany, and Wikipedia |is not a soapbox, something that applies when the deletion constitutes the action.  See the Mohammad Cartoons controversy.  This recent lawsuit is also unprecedented (AFAIK) in it's coverage, and therefore constitutes new relevant information which suggests keeping the article.  And it's hard to argue that we should maintain an article for the lawsuit without pointing out why the lawsuit was needed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: Passes the first test of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PERP)

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

Comment: As mentioned previously, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion of Walter Sedlmayr edit history required decided in 2008 that the mens' names would not be removed from the English language Wikipedia, since the information was already in the public domain and had First Amendment protection. This was before Dr Alexander H Stopp succeeded in bringing the matter international coverage in the New York Times and elsewhere in 2009. The difference between German and Anglo Saxon law on this issue has been noted, but the real issue here is whether Wolfgang Werlé is worth a separate , or whether the information should be covered elsewhere
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: It was agreed at the time of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion of Walter Sedlmayr edit history required in 2008 that the English language Wikipedia would not remove information about the case that was already in the public domain. The Sedlmayr case as a whole easily meets , but it is less than ideal to frame the current brouhaha as a  of Wolfgang Werlé. This is why the current version of the article would be better renamed as Murder of Walter Sedlmayr
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: As Kevin correctly points out, were it not for the lawsuit, this ''would'' be a clear . However, the lawsuit is clearly a significant ''second'' and separate event where the subject is involved, and the coverage of the lawsuit is not ''incidental'' to him, as he is the ''plaintiff.'' For that reason, I oppose the inevitable separation of closely linked information that would arise from deleting the article, as being unhelpful to our readers and thus to Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Renamed article is fine. Also, subject didn't request deletion but requested name not be included in initial article about Walter Sedlmayr. That's clearly not consistent with Wikipedia policy. Also, claims that notability is due to Wikipedia related issues are  misguided in that a) Wikipedia related material must be treated just as other material (some people think  says otherwise. They should read what it actually says) and b) the surrounding controversy and related issues likely met notability even without the Wikipedia material.  Given renaming, there is no credible deletion argument. Follow: To clarify since the renaming keeps going back and forth I see renaming as the most reasonable thing to do and under the rename think it should be kept. Without the renaming I weekly favor keeping since the ongoing controversy has made Werle notable and we don't actually have any reason to think that he would see an article as substantially worse than mentioning his name in the main Sedlmayr article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:SELFREF)

Comment: I've http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolfgang_Werl%C3%A9&diff=326583695&oldid=326582734 reverted the title change Lulu of the Lotus-Eater made from Wolfgang Werle to "Murder of Walter Sedlmayr". Although I have as much respect for  as the next Wikipedia, I think it's a complete insult to the AFD process,  and to all the Wikipedians participating in this discussion for someone to make such an article change ''right in the middle'' of an AFD discussion. Such a title change may very well be the decision of this AFD, but since we're already deep into the discussion, it only makes sense to wait until the outcome
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD||WP:CONSENSUS)

Comment: Two sources of notability (crimes, and Wikipedia lawsuit) take him past  and , and both are adequately supported by |reliable independent sources testifying to his notability per .  There's no cogent, policy-supported reason for this article's deletion.  (I'd add to the nominator, Grsz11, that if you're not personally convinced that the article can and should be deleted on the basis of policy that it's not helpful to bring it to AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RS||WP:N)