Deletion of Andreas Lubitz (3rd nomination)

Comment: per . Lubitz is notable for one thing only, and there is no justification for a separate biography. I am unconvinced that extending  via  is itself a valid reason to delete an article, but in this case it is unnecessary, since  covers the issue anyway. I would add that few of the keep !votes above appear to actually give an explanation for why encyclopaedic coverage of a single event needs to be split into two articles. How does it benefit our readership to split coverage in this manner
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIME||WP:BLP1E||WP:BDP)

Comment: Notable enough for , based on the impact of his actions and influence on airline industry
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: Per , "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Well, the event IS highly significant as it has led to many airlines adopting a "rule of two" procedure for flight decks. And the role of Lubitz IS a large one because he caused it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: This article meets the requirements of  for a separate article. The article is needed for the degree of psychological information that has come to light and more that will as the investigation is completed, that is not appropriate for the crash article. Also let's please complete this debate and close it properly so that we can stop the endless AfD and merger debates and get on with writing the articles instead
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)