Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Lörrach hospital 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Lörrach hospital shooting

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

Nominated after a discussion at ITN/C. The reason is WP:WIDESPREAD. Tone 15:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Extensively covered in virtually every German newspaper, with lots of follow-up articles and analyzing; the incident has also restarted debate about the gun law. WP:WIDESPREAD is not policy. --memset (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability criteria. Here is not about widespread. - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no evidence of lasting impact. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence that this will have lasting impact? Are you kidding me? Two days before this happened, the father of the Winnenden shooter went on trial for improperly keeping his firearms that led to manslaughter; then this happens! You are saying there is no chance this will have a lasting impact on gun policy in germany? She used a .22 sporting pistol, one of the last things that would ever be banned, but this might even cinch it; who knows! Besides, there is a page for just about every spree or rampage killing that results in this many fatalities. 99.231.200.55 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said "no evidence" and not "no chance". By the way chance is a speculation. You said who knows. Well i looks like, you think you know, because you !voted for keep. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lasting impact is not a requirement under Wikipedia:Notability (events). It is only one of several indications or criteria of notability.AMuseo (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Impact in the news also in Italy. User:Lucifero4

That it is reported in Italy too, does not mean it can stay. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- If the news is reported outside the country where the fact happened means about the notability of the event.User:Lucifero4

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep per memset. --Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously a notable topic. The nominator must be bored or trigger-happy. BlueRobe (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wide coverage of this atrocity makes it Wikipedia:Notability (events).AMuseo (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2010 (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.