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 only keep !vote was unable to convince the other participants that this is not mere news coverage and their argument fails to take into account that a crime being "unusual" does not automatically mean it should be included. So Why 20:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Konstanz shooting[edit]

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

Before I present my rationale, let me make two things clear: this was not terrorism and the perpetrator was killed. The non-existent "obvious terror" and "there will be a trial" guidelines can be discarded. Now, for the actual policies, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. With that being said, only two days of WP:ROUTINE reports within the typical news cycle covered the incident. The crime, while terribly unfortunate, fails WP:CRIME, WP:LASTING, and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE as well. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable crime. This kind of articles belongs at Wikinews, not here. —Kusma (t·c) 09:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unusual, notable crime. Several people being shot in one incident in Western Europe is very unusual. There's no requirement that only terror attacks can be notable crimes. The gunman having been killed at the scene doesn't make the crime less notable - in most mass shootings in peacetime the killer either kills himself or is killed. Jim Michael (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you address my whole rationale instead of the part meant to detract editors from those types of poor rationales? I hate to break it to you but there is nothing "unusual" about this shooting. The gunman got into a heated argument with the manager. While it is incredibly stupid to solve a problem with a bullet, it is also sadly a common occurrence. Two days of media coverage will not change that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you expect me to say? I've countered what you say is justification for deleting the article. Mass shootings certainly are unusual in Western Europe. It wasn't one bullet, he shot several people. He didn't merely argue with the manager - he left and came back with a loaded gun. Jim Michael (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, you didn't counter anything but I guess it was still worth asking for a legitimate keep rationale. Coverage went away after a routine news cycle. You know the definition of WP:NOTNEWS and so do I. I will not even readdress the rest of my rationale; it is just too obvious, according to our guidelines, why this incident fails notability standards.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- wikipedia is not a newspaper. Coverage is routine crime blotter. No lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I do take User:Jim Michael's point that this sort of shooting doesn't happen in Germany, or, at, least, that this sort of gun crime used to be very rare in Germany, it does not appear that it has gotten coverage as anything beyond a personal dispute that tragically led to 2 deaths.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A personal dispute in which uninvolved people were also shot. Jim Michael (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Michael...and? Does the involvement, or lack there of, of the victims somehow address the lack of coverage?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You want this deleted because there hasn't been enough media coverage of it? Jim Michael (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jim Michael, Hi. I am guessing that you are either new to WP, or have not often joined AfD discussions. Please take a moment to look at WP:NCRIME, making sure to scroll to the top of the page and look at WP:EVENTCRITERIA. It is not that i and other editors fail ot see that this crime is as notable as it is horrific, it is only that we are asking, Is it encyclopedic? and gauging our responses by those standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He has actually been around longer than you and me combined, and has more edits than us which is surprising.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2017 (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.