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 clear consensus to keep this article as it's notable and has a wealth of reliable sources, but there remains some concern with the title of the article per Fuzheado's concerns. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 03:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Zurich attack[edit]

2016 Zurich attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

this article is not notable. there is nothing about it on the german wikipedia despite it happened in the german speaking part of the world. you can also try to test where it ended up with what references and try translating it - arabic, azerbeidschan, armenian. and compare the number of total articles with articles about topics like this one on such wikipedias. a pity if wikipedia would be reduced to report persons hurt by shots. wikipedia is not a "crime database". the perceived motivation, in this case disliking a foreign culture, should not be used to construct notability, and enter the incident into wikipedia, and with it make it notable, a notability it would otherwise not have. the text as well is really crap quality, mixing up guyana with ghana, dübendorf with uster, and so on. also the cited german media are of low quality. to give you another example: a year ago a turkish person killed 5 persons. it was reported in newspapers, sources with right tendecy critised that the case was "made smaller" by the newspapers. if you search for "blutbad würenlingen" you find many references, from notable newspapers as well. these notable newspapers would report with one or more articles about every single crime where persons die, at least in switzerland. the main difference is that donald trump woke up in the morning and decided "ah this one might be about foreigners, lets tweet about it". wikipedia does not yet have a criteria "made notable by donald trump". we have our criteria, not the ones of donald trump. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Obviously I'm partial, since I wrote much of the current article up to this point. The murder and shooting in Zurich obviously isn't the biggest news story of the day, but it did get picked up widely and I think there is value in recording what happened for present and future interested readers. Obviously, the NYTimes, Guardian, USA Today, CNN, and others in the international press thought so as well. Would it have been as big a story without the coincident timing and terrorism fears? Perhaps not. Though with only 41 murders per year in Switzerland (2014 stat [1]), and even fewer mass shootings, this event was always going to attract a lot of local attention. We can't cover every crime, but Wikipedia is not paper and we can cover a lot of crimes, provided reasonable sources are available (as they are in this case). Dragons flight (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Is notable. Good References. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 13:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. On its own this would be a relatively low-key shooting, as these things go, and probably on the border of WP:NOTNEWS. But the coincidence with the other attacks of the same day, and their linking by such figures as Donald Trump, have led to the shooting receiving international media attention. This probably merits retaining an article, if only to allow readers to assess this case in context with the other two attacks.  Sandstein  15:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep There is a dependable way in which Wikipedia decides whether the larger socio-political context renders otherwise routine events notable, and that is whether they receive coverage in reliable sources, which this seems to have. The German Wikipedia is also less than half the size of the English, and so lacks many many articles that we have here, with no bearing on whether we should delete a few million English articles to better achieve parity. TimothyJosephWood 16:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: It is an unquestionably notable topic. The nominator does not cite any actual Wikipedia policies or guidelines that would give a precedent to delete the page. Ceosad (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Relevant topic. Wikipedia is not short of paper. JonSonberg (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - and close. This one is notable through extensive sources and media attention. plus impact.BabbaQ (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dragons flight and Sandstein --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article is notable enough Beejsterb (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename - With some investigation, this is just a person with mental health issues and not much else. If indeed you want to keep it because of the one day's numerous events, I'd suggest this does not amount to a "Zurich attack" and instead call it the "2016 Zurich Islamic center shooting" or something more in line with the scale of this event's significance, which is not much. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that the name is somewhat problematic. However, I'm not sure what to change it to? Focusing on just the shooting in the title, ignores the murder. Also, none of the sources have identified the suspect as having any documented history of mental health issues. The police have naturally said that they are looking into the mental health of the suspect, but they haven't actually confirmed any current or historical mental health issues. Dragons flight (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  now i find the contents now less sensationalist, and the quality greatly improved. i do still not like the title though, tbh. "3 wounded in zürich islamic center" would be something which comes much closer to the facts what made it go through the media. i agree that 20'000 murders occurring in the world per year is not a good argument that this one should not be in wikipedia. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS. More or less run of the mill crazy-person-run-amok shooting incident. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; Sandstein's comment might have seemed justifiable at the time of the attack, but as it's clearly fallen out of public discourse since then, there's at least a degree of recentism involved in the judgement of this single attack as notable. Mélencron (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2016 (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.