Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viernheim shooting


 * 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 delete. The overall consensus appears to be that this is ultimately a case of WP:NOTNEWS enhanced by initial beliefs that the incident was going to be larger than it was. There's a lot of ifs and hypotheticals about what could have been in the only keep argument and I'm happy to yield to those on the other side of the debate. KaisaL (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Viernheim shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This seems to be the act of some mentally ill person that fortunately did not result in any casualties. Investigators said the incident is most likely not terror-related. The police acted quickly and neutralized the threat before anything else could happen. Just a run-of-the-mill local crisis. Parsley Man (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: per non-event. Was only a momentary blip of media hype. -- dsprc   [talk]  02:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I created this article when there were reports of dozens of injuries. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Not news. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOTNEWS No hostages were injured, thus not significantly notable. Meatsgains (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: per nom. --Dcirovic (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, partially covered by Portal:Current events/2016 June 23. D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. International headlines, it certainly appears to be an attempt to create fear like a terrorist attacks in Aurora Colorado, Paris, Louisiana and Renton Washington. No need to try to delete every incident that resembles a terrorist attack even if it is not connected to a recognized terrorist group. The man clearly intended to use terrorist attire, weapons and tactics as he had a hand grenade, explosives belt, balaclava, combat boots, long gun and ammunition belt over his shoulder. If man had been given training an a mission by a terrorist group, he clearly could have done just as much damage as an actual terrorist. If there were a category for incidents where disturbed people only carry out a foiled attack for personal rather than terrorist reasons, this would be applicable. Why are only incidents with a high victim count the only ones that are notable, and why are attempted terrorist attacks with international coverage considered non-notable enough to justify deletion? Bachcell (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The 2015 Thalys attack had very few injuries, and no fatalities, yet it was kept because of the amount of lasting media coverage at the time. For this incident, media coverage pretty much stopped after the first day, with no articles about it that I can find, that were also published after 23 June. Also, while explosives were found on the shooter's body, I have not seen any sources confirming whether they were real or fake, though since there have been no updates on the situation, I can only assume they were fake. On a side-note, I did not recall any incident happening in Renton, Washington. What was that about? Parsley Man (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Even in Germany news coverage stopped after two days. After SEK-Einsatz in Viernheim: Toter Geiselnehmer hatte nur Schreckschusswaffen (SWAT action at Viernheim: Death hostage-tage had only gas-weapons) and fake handgrenades, there was nothing. Some media freaked out and reported a lot of injuries and possible deaths, other media followed in the stampede. The source "US Weekly" has no facts only rumours and was published before the press conference of Hesse's interior minister. --EPsi (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Bachcell who is right in his assessment.BabbaQ (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom, though I would like to highlight our early work on this page as an example of Wikipedia's fine work in responding to breaking news stories. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree! The work on this page was reporting rumours from tabloid papers when nobody knew nothing. Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper Nothing is lost if you wait some hours before starting an article about breaking news. But that is the Live-Ticker-Twitter way. In hindsight the section "Attack" is utter crap. --EPsi (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2016 (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.