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. I am not sure what "111 user review" is supposed to mean but as noted by others citing e.g WP:SUSTAINED news coverage alone is not always enough to justify an article, and the consensus here leans into the direction that it is not enough in this case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 East London mosque 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)

WP:NOTNEWS + not a killing (shooting blanks in front of the mosque. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. It's notable itself and in one day recorded 111 user review. Also it's not Blank Article. It's look like the article pay to a uncompleted terrorist attack in London city which the attacker left the scene.Forest90 (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep this has nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS. Also the amount of killed people is not a reason for deletion and nothing in the article seems to suggest that there was a killing. The deletion should most likely to be about notability and it is based on whether there are extensive reports about the subject on reliable sources or not. The event seems notable and have got attention from newspapers and so passes WP:GNG (this is based on a quick check on google). The reason for the speedy keep is because the reason that was given by the nominator doesn't seem to be a good reason for the deletion so I think this article should be kept unless there is a good reason presented for the deletion.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the general principle I meant was from NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." WP:NEWSEVENT would have been more precise. Many crimes get coverage from multiple reliable sources but that does not mean all such are topics for an encyclopedia. WikiHannibal (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete local news story with no damage or anyone hurt. Nate • (chatter) 00:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has not been sustained and also fails News reports. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete. No deaths, no injuries, no lasting notability. WWGB (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine incident of someone goofing around with a blank-firing weapon in which nobody was hurt or injured. As parochial a story as it gets. ‑ Iridescent 08:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it was some bloke messing around shooting blanks, what's the point in making a wiki article about it? There's no deaths, no injuries, and hell, it didn't even make national news, maybe not even regional news. Nowhere near notable enough to be handed an article. Cheesy McGee (talk) 08:40, 17 May 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.