Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Würenlingen 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Würenlingen shooting[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non notable crime. The only sources are routine coverage. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple shootings like this, especially in Europe, are pretty rare and invariably notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No claims of notability, no proof of notability. Rogermx (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What "claims of notability" are you looking for? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any statement in the article that explains why this incident is significant / unusual / worth attention. That's a familiar idea in AfD discussions. --Lockley (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not really, it isn't. I have seen a few editors insisting that every article must have a "this is important because" statement, but that is simply a misinterpretation of the notability requirements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - If it was an act of terror or received international coverage, it might be notable. If it resulted in new legislation in Germany, created a political scandal or involved a celebrity or other well-known figure, it might be notable. I agree with Lockley's suggestion to Merge it into the Würenlingen article. Rogermx (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      And how many of the countless articles we have on murders do you think fall into most of those categories? Very few. As to international coverage, there's a link to a BBC article on the page. Is the BBC Swiss (not German, incidentally)? So yes, that's international coverage. Most British newspapers covered it as well. A quick Google search also shows coverage from Ireland, Australia, India, the USA, Taiwan... And that's just a selection of English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - hello @Necrothesp: -- in good faith & good humor let me follow up on that phrase "claim of notability." I do so partly for my own benefit so I have it right. That phrase occurs in wikipedia once at WP:NOT, versions of it three times here at an older inoperative version, with about 2350 more verbatim occurrences in wikipedia to choose from. I looked at the first four pages of results, and the phrase is used how I'd expected, in guidelines and discussions. The slightly different phrase "claim to notability" comes back with another 1700 results to choose from but you see the point. No, expressing a claim to notability isn't formalized or mandatory. I would be against that, as you seem to be. But it's a useful concept here in the AfD queue, that language comes from the guidelines, and it's natural that an editor would talk about it. Best --Lockley (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Necrothesp It is a common phrase at AFD because of WP:A7 which does require that we provide some sort of indication of importance within an article. Without one, an article can be speedy deleted even if it passes GNG. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, it isn't especially common because most editors with any experience realise that it stems from a far too literal reading of notability criteria. An indication of importance doesn't necessarily mean explicitly stating importance. It simply means using common sense to determine whether something is important. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Würenlingen, where this crime is already mentioned. One study on data from 2009 to 2015 showed the U.S. ranked as #11 in terms of fatalities from mass shootings per capita. Ten European countries had worse statistics. Switzerland came in at #7. That may be a surprisingly and counterintuitive result from a politically charged analysis -- but the point is, that shows European mass shootings are not rare enough to be automatically notable in wikipedia. Notice that since 1985 there are been two mass shootings in this Swiss town of 5000 people. --Lockley (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and ideally migrate any relevant additions (if any) to the Würenlingen page. As Lockley notes, Switzerland has high gun ownership and gun violence, so the existing mention is more than enough - unless if, in future, it changes something, e.g. gun legislation. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7. Article fails to indicate the importance of the subject. Additionally the article reads like a news item and not an encyclopedia entry; fails WP:NOTNEWS. Lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage and therefore fails WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local and fleeting coverage, fails WP:NOTNEWS. Avilich (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2021 (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.