Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Utrecht 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 keep. WP:SNOW and WP:RAPID. Wait a week before renominating if you really still feel it's not notable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Utrecht 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)

AfD by 97.118.129.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): This is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. MrClog (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I personally oppose deleting it, as per WP:RAPID, which states:

Articles about breaking news events—particularly biographies of participants—are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. Deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to delete. There may be alternatives to deletion, such as merging or reworking the article so that it conforms with policy, for example, by rewriting an article about a person known only for one event to be about the event. Other alternatives to deletion while the story develops are userfying or incubating the article in draftspace.

This is a clear case of RAPID and we should definitely wait a few days. MrClog (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the events are still ongoing, may further discuss I'd this meets WP:GNG or not few days later. --B dash (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This easily passes notability requirements. A mass shooting in which 3 people were killed inside a busy city tram, followed by the killer fleeing. There was major disruption and restrictions prior to the suspect being arrested. There has been a great deal of coverage by the mainstream international media. Even if no terrorist link is found, it's a major event with lasting significance. This is Europe's worst crime of 2019 and won't quickly be forgotten. Jim Michael (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the person quoting WP:RAPID that it's too early at this stage to consider a deletion. Also, this is a notable subject, especially in a Dutch context (low crime rate, shootings are rare), and so far the article looks pretty good to me. --Spooners21 (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I agree this is ongoing and if more turns up could be much more or not. ContentEditman (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. Much of the content and apparent notability stems from reports speculating that this may have been a terrorist attack, which it no longer appears to have been. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and has no obligation to report on every mass shooting that happens, even those covered by the press at rapid fire. 97.118.129.179 (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Wait~~. Per Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Inclusion criteria, "Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance."

That remains to be seen in this case. A lot will turn on whether it is an out-of-control domestic violence incident, as some reports suggest, in which case it may quickly fade from history with little or no trace, or a terror event, in which case it will have lasting historical importance, at least in The Netherlands. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC) Changed to keep. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Major violence at a public place in which most of the victims are strangers is not usually considered domestic violence. Even if this had happened in the killer's house & all the victims were related to him, it would still be notable enough for an article. Jim Michael (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID Teemu08 (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable event, Definately keep article. I cannot understand the rush to want to delete it. Whilst I'm not comfortable with these type of events being given quite so much media attention, it seems very clear that it is a highly unusual notable incident in the dutch context, even if hindsight may teach us that it was notable for being an over-reaction, or perhaps too quickly labelled a terrorist incident. I very very rarely edit wikipedia (so please forgive any newbie format errors here) but as a daily/hourly wikipedia reader I've found that articles like these give important clarity & conciseness that I often can't find elsewhere. Surely these sort of articles will be very helpful for future research. I've worked all my adult life in UK media, now living in NL. MVG / Thanks 77.163.66.189 (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see no reason why this article doesn't meet WP:GNG. --158.182.178.117 (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2019 (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.