Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Gothenburg pub 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Gothenburg pub shooting

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

Notability? Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep such events are rare and of high significance in Sweden, notable event.. Gizmocorot (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provide evidence it is "rare and of high significance in Sweden" rather than just a personal opinion. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - non-notable. This is not the swedish WP. If it's notable in sweden it belongs in that wiki. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misunderstanding of the concept of notability. Different Wikipedia versions have different notability standards, but that is a very different thing indeed from saying that something that is in fact notable in one country does not belong in other language Wikipedias. Otherwise a large number of articles about notable events would have to be removed. --bonadea contributions talk 09:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If someone posted an article in written in Swedish, it would not belong. The commonplace event of shootings in the US has gotten so common unless its a Sandy Hook Elementary, or something of that magnitude, its not notable in the US for an article. This may be notable in sweden, but a shooting in a restaraunt with a lone gunman and two people shot wouldn't even make the national evening news in the US, so here its not that notable, in sweden it might be but not here. Non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is routine news in other places. But ... see, this is not even a news website, this is an encyclopedia, it does not, anyway, belong here. According to the same article, it is not "terror related", so... here comes my question again, notability? --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, notability does not work like that. Wikipedia versions are not related to countries - the English-language WP is not for and about English-speaking countries, the Swedish-language WP is not for and about Sweden and Finland. Notability refers to whether something has been noted, it's not the same as "of world-wide relevance". The shooting would not have been notable in the US if it had happened there, but that has absolutely no bearing on the notability of the event, as "notability" is defined in Wikipedia. The actual event was in fact notable in the US since it was reported there, e.g. [1] (since this is not the US Wikipedia it is actually not that relevant whether something is reported there, but of course it strengthens the case for notability that it was reported on in multiple national media around the world.) --bonadea contributions talk 06:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias (pro US) are common, and totally negative; however, this has nothing to do with that, this event fails WP:EVENT (more precisely WP:GEOSCOPE), as I said below. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep - the article already includes coverage by BBC and the Guardian (and the BBC reference says very clearly that this kind of shooting is very unusual in Sweden) and a quick search for more sources finds a lot of coverage from US, Australian and other international sources. Notability is clearly shown. --bonadea contributions talk 09:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No convincing reason presented for deletion, especially with that question mark. Nate • (chatter) 20:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mrschimpf: Fails WP:EVENT (more precisely WP:GEOSCOPE). Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with @Gizmocorot that such an event is highly unusual and a notable event in Sweden. For notability, it is irrelevant whether the event was terror related or not. While the article could be improved, it is written as an encyclopedic entry of a historic event, rather than as a news item.Martinogk (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep - notable and rare event in Sweden. Also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: BBC News and The Mirror are cited in the lead, so the GNG is met before even getting to the body of the article... where The Guardian's coverage is also cited. Was this nomination based on a misunderstanding of how notability works? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 01:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, still, this fails WP:GEOSCOPE. Nothing has been shown here that this event is notable after it happened. I mean, the cited news media coverage is only from the day of the attack, that does not prove any lasting significance. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:GEOSCOPE says "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable." This event wasn't reported only by local media. I see nothing else in that section to suggest that a topic which otherwise meets the general notability guideline (as this topic does) is necessarily non-notable because it was a one-time event. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 00:48, 31 October 2015 (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.