Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Münster attack


 * 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. There is a clear consensus to keep. The option to merge can be further discussed on the talk page if desired. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

2018 Münster attack

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I doubt that this event turns out to be notable per WP:EVENT. Given that reporting so far indicates that a terrorist / extremist background is unlikely, and that the death toll is low in comparison to other similar attacks, a lasting effect and persistent coverage are improbable. This leaves us with a WP:NOTNEWS situation. A mention in Vehicle-ramming attack with one or two good sources should suffice.  Sandstein  07:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to Vehicle-ramming attack. A tragedy for those involved, but there's no long lasting historical impact. This is Paul (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree to the merge. There is no terrorist intent reported, sounds like just some nutjob, forgotten in a couple of days. 50.111.41.216 (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , the incident was horrific and had a great effect in Germany and in German cities. A simple search on the internet would reveal its notoriety. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:RAPID. Front page international news (e.g. - it is main item on Reuters at the moment (shame on them - edging out the Syrian gas attack!), pictured side item on main in CNN (they are running with the gas attack as the main))). Too soon to speculate on continuing coverage and motivations (though there have been "extremist right" ties floating around - e.g. The public broadcaster ZDF suggested he had links with far-right extremists, but said he was not known to be one himself.Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Obviously notable. Great media coverage. Social impact. G a b i n h o >:) 12:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:RAPID--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: what is it with Germans and their deletion fantasies? This event is clearly relevant and notable. We have tons of articles like this in the English Wikipedia.-- A P S  talk  12:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Reported articles in newspapers on the other side of the planet Washington Post: Van plows into crowd in northern German city of Münster, killing at least 2, and the reality that attacks on random stranger in public places resulting in multiple deaths tend to draw WP:SIGCOV and have impact (like the forest of bollards now springing up in German cities) make this one a keeper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: As this only happened yesterday it's no surprise it's still headline news. But what you have to ask yourself is, will it still be making the news next weekend? This is Paul (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * possibly not, but "still be making the news next weekend" is not the standard by which we gauge the notability of EVENTS such as the 2015 Graz attack, or December 2017 Melbourne car attack.  The standard here is WP:NCRIME.  Vehicle-ramming attacks in Germany are a recent phenomenon that have have been attracting ONGOING and SIGCOV.  I suppose (fixed typo) that this may change if they become routine, but - thank heaven - they are still very far from ROUTINE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * SNOW Keep per WP:RAPID. Based on the existing votes, there is not a snowball's chance in hell this will be deleted in the next week, regardless of the notability.  I attempted to NAC this, but have reverted by request. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, once RAPID no longer applies, a merge discussion can happen on the talk page without an AfD. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Objection. I did not justify my "k" iVote on RAPID, but on the GEOSCOPE and nature of coverage.  In my experience, merge discussions on topics about contested subjects can become a sort of stealth deletion.  I think that it is better for the integrity of project to let this discussion play out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. There are some "Keep per RAPID, but possibly delete later" votes, and some "Keep per GNG (and keep later" votes.  Both are keep votes as far as this discussion is concerned. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect - Yes it’s in a lot of newspapers. Yes, a lot of people are affected. But, we’re not a newspaper. Adding to Vehicle-ramming attack is adequate. One hopes this will not be what this 1,200 year old city is remembered for. WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENTISM WP:10YT O3000 (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect as suggested by This is Paul. Such attacks have become fairly commonplace; we need more evidence that this one 1) meets GNG and NOTNEWS and 2) survives the test of time. --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge What makes this article notable is that the nature of the event is similar to Islamic attacks. As it is not a politically motivated or religion based attack it is not of a category deserving of an entire entry to itself. It could be merged with a page dealing with suicide attacks in Europe or ramming attacks: a brief entry should suffice. To create a wiki entry for every murder in Europe would be a profitless task. The person that created this page was a bit too keen. The urge to instantly add an entry for every momentarily newsworthy event is not a good trend. Signed by Gavan 22:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:2D23:4758:3DCA:DC59:9BA1:5AC5 (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Although there appears to have been no political or religious motive, this was still a major event. Many people were injured, it received international media coverage, severely disrupted the centre of a medium-sized city and appears to have been only one of two vehicle-ramming attacks to have occurred in Germany (the other being the 2016 Berlin attack). Jim Michael (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Easy keep since the article's subject is an event that is evidently, independently notable, per numerous sources. This is a developing story, the man said.-The Gnome (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, per all above as a notable event. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, same rationale as User:E.M.Gregory. PvOberstein (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why was there even an attempt to delete it in the first place? On the third day, it is still top news in Germany, all over Germany (sometimes superior to the Syrian gas attacks), everyone is aware what happened, everyone is aware that fake news were spread and is debating how to fight hate speech, fake news, unsubstantiated rumours etc., and thus, the Münster attack will stay relevant. Also, Germans are still awaiting more details about Jens R. and they continue to trickle out. It has also revived the debate about Poller in inner cities, about security in general, about the Heimatminister Horst seehofer, etc. Incredibly relevant! --ObersterGenosse (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - large scale significant coverage, obviously notable and passes WP:GNG. The 2017 Times Square car crash was an intended terrorist attack either, yet it and this event are both notable due to the rarity of such automobile rampage incidents and the attention they revive. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Plenty of coverage world wide. Top news that day. Article is referenced with good refs. BabbaQ (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - This page should be kept because of the amount of anticipation the event recieved as a terriorist attack. Jibran1998 (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - there's already been several days' of coverage in International media, and likely more to come. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.