Deletion of 2016 UCLA shooting

Comment: It's a notable event. Per {{U|Sometimes the sky is blue}}'s comment, |notability is not temporary and therefore all the  delete rationales aren't that valid here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: more than just a one-off murder-suicide. Guy has a kill list, kills someone in Minnesota, drives 2000 miles with guns to kill a professor in his office. More than passing coverage in media, hence meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  notability is not temporary. If it is notable today, it is notable for eternity
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: I have added a efactoring talk pages#Resectioning|arbitrary section break above to delineate the point at which new information emerged about this case that (I perceive) turned the tide of responses from a general consensus of ''Delete'' to ''Keep'', in order to allow a potential closer to better assess the current consensus
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R)

Comment: or '''Strong merge & redirect''' - Meets . Special:Contributions/174.95.4.78|174.95.4.78
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per . https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/06/02/apparent-murder-suicide-ucla-reflects-kind-violence-rare-feared "Experts say murders of professors on campus are not common, but they do happen." Incidents of violence are common, and the only reason this one got so much coverage was because it happened to be inside a university building. At this point, it seems to be an isolated incident of violence that does not merit WP inclusion. However, the ''reaction'' to the incident ''may'' eventually merit inclusion at History of the University of California, Los Angeles (depending on how future events occur), so I would !vote for a '''redirect''' to that article in the alternative. Regards
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: No real opinion for deletion or otherwise, but I agree with those above that it should be closed for now per , and reopened later if it seems to not meet 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID||WP:GNG)

Comment: The AfD has now been open for seven days, and all but one respondents since new information emerged on 2 June have called for the article to be kept, including the original nominator.  
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOWBALL)

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