Template:Did you know nominations/Montgomery County, Pennsylvania shootings
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania shootings[edit]
... that the shootings in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, resulted in seven deaths, including the suspect, who had suffered from PTSD until he died from apparent "self-inflicted cutting wounds"?
ALT1:... that the shootings in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, resulted in seven deaths, including the PTSD-diagnosed suspect, who died from apparent "self-inflicted cutting wounds"?- ALT2:... that six were found shot and stabbed to death alongside one injured in three different homes in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania?
- ALT3:... that six were found killed alongside one injured person in three different homes in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania?
- ALT4:... that the PTSD-diagnosed suspect of the killings of six people in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, was found dead with apparent "self-inflicted cutting wounds"?
- ALT5:... that one person was injured and six died in a killing spree in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania?
- Reviewed: Authors Guild v. HathiTrust
- Comment: A failed ITN nomination, which I opposed. I credited The Rambling Man for the former 2014 Pennsylvania shootings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, which was uncontroversially merged to the targeted article.
Currently, this article is tagged as AFD, which will be closed as either "no consensus" or "keep".AFD discussion is closed as "kept".
Created by Benbuff91 (talk), The Rambling Man (talk). Nominated by George Ho (talk) at 02:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC).
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough. All the hooks are reliably sourced and any of them could be used. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright/close paraphrasing issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
