Deletion of 2015 Gothenburg pub shooting (2nd nomination)

Comment: Passes , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I understand the arguments of , but this appears to go beyond that, meeting  and is 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG||WP:NOTTEMPORARY)

Comment: but this incident should not  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 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT||WP:GNG)

Comment: Looks like there's just enough lasting coverage to get around , and the "first" that {{u|E.M.Gregory}} picked up on shows this is one that's likely to be brought up repeatedly moving forward. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)