Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Gothenburg pub shooting (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Gothenburg pub shooting[edit]

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

Textbook WP:NOTNEWS. This is literally a random local crime, and that's it. There's no substantial coverage whatsoever. International news picks up just about anything these days. The previous AfD seemed to indicate that because it was picked up as a story on the same day by international outlets, it met notability simply for that reason. However, that coverage began and ceased with one story, which seems to indicate that the temporary nature of the coverage was well within the news cycle and did not reach a level of significance high enough to meet "notability is not temporary". MSJapan (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is untrue that "There's no substantial coverage whatsoever." I had little difficulty locating in-depth coverage and analysis from Public Radio International and The Guardian. There was probably more. Nor did coverage end the day after the crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AFD was just 3 months ago. Quite a reasonable conversation and a clear consensus to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY. This was a highly publicized event and is notable. The nominator seem to indicate the reasoning of media brought it up, but hey they bring everything up these days. that is not a reasoning for deletion. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per WP:NOTNEWS. A Google search has shown up basically no references any later than about a week after the shooting occurred, which, as the nominator says, is textbook NOTNEWS. It has no lasting notability. NOTTEMPORARY does not apply because the event was never notable (i.e. achieved enduring notability) to be begin with. Aspirex (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"basically no references any later than about a week after the shooting occurred" is simply false. If you found this, you were not doing a proper search. For example, the Gothenberg shooting was widely rehearsed in coverage of the October 2015 Trollhättan school attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A personal opinion on notability does not trump WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Simply because you think that the event never was notable does not change the fact that per sources and overall media attention etc it is notable. Especially per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources and media attention were routine coverage of a news event, ergo it was not notable per WP:NOTNEWS. This is not "personal opinion", it is a policy-based judgement. WP:NOTNEWS trumps WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Aspirex (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In fact, the crime has been the center of major public conversations in Sweden as the country begins to focus on the social conditions inside it's marginalized immigrant populations. It is a central political conversation as Sweden comes to grips with the impact of immigrntion on immigrants and on Swedish society. see: Sweden shooting puts focus on life in 'ghettoes without hope'; With a bystander one of the two men shot dead in Gothenburg, gang violence has made marginalised immigrant communities a matter for national debate from The Guardian here: [1], I have added substantive coverage form the Washington Post and The Guardian to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – but this incident should not WP:INHERIT notability just because it is connected with a wider political discussion about Immigration in Sweden or Gang violence in Sweden. As I look through the references you've added to the article, there are a bunch of other news articles in the immediate event aftermath, and then three news reports covering other incidences of gang violence which make brief mentions to the pub shooting as part of their narrative – all of which is consistent with routine news coverage. I'm still not seeing any strong argument that this specific event meets WP:GNG. Aspirex (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Aspirex, Your argument above was "up basically no references any later than about a week after the shooting occurred, which, as the nominator says, is textbook NOTNEWS. It has no lasting notability. NOTTEMPORARY does not apply because the event was never notable (i.e. achieved enduring notability) to be begin with." Every article I added shows that the event was discussed - often in some depth - months after it occurred. This fulfills your original standard of judging notability. Now, apparently on grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT you make a different set of demands. It because, as you put it, "because it is connected with a wider political discussion about Immigration in Sweden or Gang violence in Sweden" that the event is notable. And also because the original event garnered something far beyond "routine news coverage" It was covered not merely in wire service stores picked up worldwide , but in reported stores in newspapers far from Sweden. The coverage was at the time and has continued to be significant, reliable, in-depth, and international. The press has not treated this in a manner that can be objective described as "routine news coverage", your inaccurate description.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I said, you added only three references which came months after the incident, and all three were articles about other violent incidents which made passing references to the Gothenburg pub shooting – definitely neither significant nor in-depth. Every other reference on that page was part of the 24-hour news cycle in the aftermath: whether that be a straight-forward description of the event in a local newspaper or a sensationalised editorial in a foreign one, it's still just routine news coverage. Aspirex (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Sometimes it is better too just leave a discussion as it is. We can not all agree. You think one way, another person thinks another way. It is up to the closing admin to decide which "side" has been giving the strongest arguments. To argue back and forth is pointless as the AfD is not built around POV pushing in either direction. BabbaQ (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that This shooting marks the first time an innocent bystander has been killed by criminal gang violence in Sweden.[www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/20/gothenburg-shooting-sweden-ghettoes-gangs-varvadersligan-klas-friberg]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Expansion I have expanded the article a little. Plenty of reliable sources exist. (Grumble alert) Expanding articles, or, at least, looking to see if material to properly write a good article is a better use of precious editing time than repeating AFD discussions that closes with a consensus less than 3 months ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - your "impact" section is all about anti-immigration statements made in relation to the IKEA attack over six months later, because passing mentions of this incident are in those articles. However, the quotes you are using do not pertain to this incident, which means you are trying to draw a conclusion for the reader that is false. Secondly, as this article states that the perpetrators of this incident are unknown, claiming that they are immigrants committing crimes later in the article makes no sense, because it was already established that the perpetrators are unknown. It is precisely the lack of substantive information that makes this article a candidate for deletion, and expanding it with unrelated statements does not suddenly address that issue.MSJapan (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This crime is significant bcause 1.) it is described as the first time an innocent bystander was killed in a drug gang shootout; 2.) Drug gang shootouts are usually confined to gang members and - in Sweden - take place within immigrant enclaves, but in this case 8 bystanders were wounded and hospitalized; 3.) the location and death/injuries to bystanders were unusual enough to garner massive international coverage; 4.) the incident was unusual enough to garner ongoing coverage of this crime as an example of what feels to Swedish observers as a sudden and threatening upsurge of violent crime in a country where shootings were very rare until very recently, and all Swedish conversation on the topic is about the immigrant gangs that run drugs, weapons, and some highly taxed products (liquor, tobacco) into Malmo and Goteborg - then fight over turf; about whether the rise of violent crime will cause people to attack immigrants; and about what changes should be made on immigration policy. I am sorry that YOUDONTLIKEIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to simply dismiss every counter-argument as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, there's not a lot point engaging you in conversation. Aspirex (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Context to provide perspective on the discussion around this shooting, From the Washington Post, in a story that ran 5 months after this shooting: "Sweden, a country that has one of the lowest crime rates in Europe but is also currently facing a spate of high-profile attacks.... In the most shocking attack, the industrial port city of Gothenburg was terrorized in March when two masked gunmen entered a bar and sprayed a crowd with bullets during a soccer game. Two men — one reportedly tied to a local gang — were killed in the shootout and at least 10 other people were injured.

“Sweden has been shocked by the barbarity and indiscriminate nature of the Gothenburg shootings,” the Guardian reported. “The tragedy has also shone a spotlight on a hidden aspect of Swedish society that reads like the subplot of a Stieg Larsson novel, in which poverty, racism and segregation are driving young men from immigrant backgrounds into gangs and gun crime,” the Guardian added.

"Although the incidents are each different — and much about the Ikea stabbings, in particular, remains unclear — the combined effect has been to set the normally reserved Nordic country on edge.

"Immigration, in particular, has become a touchy subject in Sweden, a country that has long prided itself on its tolerance. Germany, France and Sweden have combined to accept a majority of the asylum-seekers flooding into Europe from Africa and the Middle East.

"This rise in asylum-seekers has spurred a backlash in Sweden. Last year, the far-right Sweden Democrats party became the third-largest in parliament after pushing for a crackdown on crime and immigration." link:[2] The Guardian ran an analysis shortly after the shooting: [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I've read your references; simply restating large sections of them isn't contributing to this discussion. In any case, all you're describing is how to use the Gothenburg shooting page as a WP:COATRACK for a much wider discussion about the links between immigration and crime rates. Strip back all of that peripheral information, and you're still left with an incident which on its own merits as a stand-alone incident fails WP:GNG. Aspirex (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, enough is enough. You both need to drop the stick and let this AfD run its course. There is no point in trying to convince each other that the other is right. But this does not fail WP:GNG per current WP:GNG standards in my opinion. Also notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY as stated above. BabbaQ (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You've already said that. Suggest you drop your own stick as well. Aspirex (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that : This shooting marks the first time an innocent bystander has been killed by criminal gang violence in Sweden. Here: [4], The Guardian.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG with multiple sources and sustained coverage over time. Is also significant due to the rarity of such events in Sweden, and because of its "first" status pointed out by User:E.M.Gregory. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG, well-sourced, well-covered and also very significant. I can see why people would say delete this but it is a very rare instance in Sweden, not that all shootings at Swedish pubs deserve their own pages but still, lots of information. Jackninja5 (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I understand the arguments of WP:NOTNEWS, but this appears to go beyond that, meeting WP:GNG and is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like there's just enough lasting coverage to get around WP:NOTNEWS, and the "first" that E.M.Gregory picked up on shows this is one that's likely to be brought up repeatedly moving forward. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:53, 25 January 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.