Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clackamas Town Center 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. As pointed out by Another Believer below, all !votes after the first few day were "keep"; one person who !voted "delete" changed his/her !vote to "keep" based on the strength of coverage. Keeping this nomination open any longer would be a disservice to the 2,000 people accessing this article every day. Pete (talk)

Clackamas Town Center shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I know this is new, but WP:NOTNEWS Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 00:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a near-duplicate of the first article:
 * - MrX 02:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (for now) - we simply don't know what the longer-term WP:EFFECT might be. Until we can substantiate any effect with verification from reliable sources we are just bouncing between WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. The result is an article which might very well have been created WP:TOOSOON, but until we know, we just don't know. Let's get rid of it for now but if a longer-term effect can be substantiated then there's nothing wrong with re-creating in in the future. Stalwart 111  01:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Do these sorts of events ever not result in Wikipedia articles? WP:RAPID may apply. - MrX 01:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming number of crimes, even in public places, even when murders, do not result in articles. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 01:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, of course. My comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek. - MrX 01:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It's too soon to tell what effect there will be if any. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, at least until further information is available. Right now, all we know is a man shot and killed two people in the mall...that's not really encyclopedia material. Fruckert (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for the time being. Too soon to see what long-term effects this incident will have, if any. --   LuK3      (Talk)   02:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Clackamas Town Center. The shooting can be covered there for now. If a lot of details come around in the future, the article can be split out again.  Dough 48  72  05:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Just another one of the days' stories; it does not need an article. Shootings are recently becoming really popular on Wikipedia for some reason. Every time there is a shooting, a page is created instantly as if it holds more significance than other daily news. This shooting of such a minute number of casualties does not deserve such attention here. Harpsichord246 (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to Clackamas Town Center. The shooting has a low body count and it does not deserve an article. ComputerJA (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep but Merge with 2012 Clackamas Town Center shooting. Wikipedia is becoming very useful as a source for immediate news. After a couple weeks it can be considered what to do with the article. I recommend that this be the standard policy. Friendly Person (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You can recommend policy until the cows come home, but that isn't the current policy. Wikipedia is not only a terrible place for immediate news, I am hard pressed to think of a worse place. We have existing policy in place that specifically says that Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  If you seek to have the policy changed, you must do it on that talk page, not at AfD. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 18:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's worth mentioning that there is already a sister project, Wikinews, where news content is welcomed (and appropriate).- MrX 19:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also note that content here can not be copied over there, and there has been some talk of shutting that site down around here, due to a lack of participation. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 19:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, merge to Clackamas Town Center. --Esprqii (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * For right now, I have to agree with merge with the Mall article. It has a brief article in WikiNews, which is O.K., but it's body and victim count right now do not appear to justify a separate article other than its summary in the mall article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.133.112 (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Wikipedia is not a "ordinary" encyclopedia first off, this event is a large scale event. it needs to be recorded  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to Wikinews. Shame about the licensing problem or I would have said (as I ignorantly have advocated before) transwiki there. The subject is news, that's where it belongs. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  06:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Clackamas Town Center and Wikinews. Clearly this is getting worldwide attention so perhaps it will eventually be seen as up there with Littleton, Colorado.  If so, it can be unmerged.  —EncMstr (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am revising from Merge to Keep due to the persuasive arguments by, , , and .  —EncMstr (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as separate entry, not merged. As is the case with the 2012 Aurora Shooting at the Town Center at Aurora, Clackamas Town Center is generally not known by the world at large apart from being the site of this shooting: merging the entries will tend to make searches for the Clackamas shooting more difficult. As for its overall "longer-term WP:EFFECT" (per Stalwart), I believe a Wikipedia entry for this mass shooting, even though with fewer deaths and injuries than others such as the 2012 Aurora Shooting, the 2011 Tucson shooting, and the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting (to name just a few) advances Wikipedia's place as an online resource for historical events and a starting point for in-depth research on the topic. Wilsonchas (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I vote Keep. This event has received national (and even international) coverage and there are plenty of news sources to justify an independent article. I would propose moving the article to "2012 Clackamas shooting" . On second thought, I am not sure if this title is most appropriate since it appears the address for Clackamas Town Center is actually in Happy Valley, Oregon. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong KEEP as a separate article. Eventhough the death toll was (thankfully) relatively low, there's a definite precident for Wikipedia having articles for high-profile mass-shooting incidents of this sort.  Also, merging would be a bad idea IMO, as including all the relevant details in the Clackamas Town Center article would give undue weight to the incident in an article which should primarily focus on the mall itself. -Helvetica (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Clackamas Town Center, unless there are lasting effects (gun law changes, for example). WP:NOTNEWS applies. David  1217  What I've done 20:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge only the brief, relevant, encyclopedic content to Clackamas Town Center, in accordance with WP:NOTNEWS inclusion policy. - MrX 21:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Another strong KEEP as a separate article. -And we drown (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Mass shootings always warrant a page. This is a highly notable event. AlaskaMike (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think this article here, though it's not about a shooting spree, helps illustrate a more reasonable standard for inclusion than some of the "deletionists" are arguing for in this discussion - Richmond Hill explosion. The death toll was "only" two, and it's too soon to say what exactly the lasting impact might be in terms of changes to regulations of natural gas or whatever.  But it's clear that this was a major event, and that its inclusion will be valuable for people into the future researching the history of these sorts of explosions in the USA and the world.  Likewise, while the death-toll for this particular shooting spree was relatively minimal and its hard to say what (if any) impact it might have on future gun regulations, it's clear that Wikipedia's coverage of mass-shootings in the US would be incomplete without it.  This would certainly be a dis-service to future Wikipedia readers. -Helvetica (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said. I am actually surprised by the number of delete votes. This event is certainly notable. I imagine a couple of editors could easily put together a Good article within the next couple of months. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's what most of the "delete voters" are saying too. This might very well be a notable news event, but we don't cover notable news events. That's exactly what WP:NOTNEWS is about - we're not a news reporting service. We don't report things as they happen. We report things that previously happened that have since been shown to have had a long-term WP:EFFECT. Keeping something because it might have an effect (or because we "don't yet know" what the effect might be) is basically crystal ball gazing. As is guessing what an article might be in the future based on a guess as to what effect the event might have. This may very well be a case of WP:TOOSOON, as is the case with many "news" items. But I understand where you're coming from - we had a very similar case with this AFD. Having had a few months to let everything settle down, it became obvious that the event had a lasting effect and that could be substantiated in the article with reliable sources. For events only days ago that is always going to be very difficult. No one is suggesting, I don't think, that it's not an important event or that it won't be notable long-term. But it was probably created too soon to know what the effect would be and so it ended up here. Stalwart 111  03:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is more here than just a single news event about a man opening fire in a mall.
 * http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2012/12/clackamas_town_center_shooting.html
 * Yes, I think TOOSOON is at play here. If the article is deleted, I imagine it will crop right back up. I will probably work on a draft in the near future. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with it being userfied as well. Then if there is actual notability, such as laws changing due to the incident, etc. it can be revisited.  We have no crystal ball, so we have to look at the article as it is today, which falls short of the criteria.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 17:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - This was a relatively major event even thought the number of deaths was small. (I hope this isn't the only reason certain shootings are considered notable.) To respond to the "larger impact" comments above: In light of the school shooting today, I believe this shooting will have a larger impact because it will very likely be referenced by the media when reporting on the Connecticut shooting, which will definitely receive an article. -Noha307 (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Shootings are always major events in American society. Thetalkingheads (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Shootings are notable.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 20:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the logic of this AfD, but nominating it for deletion three days after the event isn't appropriate (see: WP:RECENTISM). It's a fairly well written article on something that is quite notable now, and it's way too early to say this this won't be notable in the future. Jbenjos (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:N(E). Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 20:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - I'm dubious of the long-term notability but let's wait a few weeks and see first. Against the current (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG. The WP:EFFECT of this shooting and the Connecticut shooting in tandem has already led to some discussion of gun control, which is also notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG for now. We can wait a few weeks and determine its lasting notability (also, the Connecticut shooting seems to have had an effect on the media and shootings) Canuck 89 (converse with me)  21:30, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Unfortunately, the event is notable enough for being in the Wikipedia--Noel baran (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This event easily passes notability guidelines, in correlation with the much larger shooting in CT, in which both have subsantial media coverage. This one in particular, has plenty of coverage to merit notability. Tinton5 (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least for now. This, coupled with the shooting in Connecticut, are likely to spawn a national debate on gun control, and therefore, at least for now as we await the impact of that discussion, I think the article should be kept. Go   Phightins  !  21:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.171.94 (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, it may not have had a high body count, but it is nevertheless an important moment in spree shooting history. There are articles for shootings that have had 1 or 0 casualties, why is that a proper reason for deleting this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFStudios (talk • contribs) 01:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously notable. Counsel nominator against making such ludicrous nominations. Everyking (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you that the article should be kept, I would remind you to please assume good faith. I highly doubt Dennis would have done anything in bad faith based on my personal interactions with him. While I respectfully disagree with him, calling this nomination "ludicrous" is, well, ludicrous because in his nomination, Dennis cited policy and explained his thinking. Consensus seems to be against him, in this case, but hey, that's why we have discussions. Go   Phightins  !  13:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the nomination was made in bad faith; I just said it was ludicrous. He did not, in fact, articulate an argument; he just said "NOTNEWS"&mdash;and while I'm sure he does fully believe that NOTNEWS applies to this subject, he did not explain why he thinks so, and so I consider the nomination to be ludicrous. Anyway, AfD should be for discussions of subjects that are of borderline notability, and I think using it to have a discussion on something that got extensive, national media coverage is a misuse of the process. Everyking (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - the mall event was a random sinister shooting, and a scary event, regardless of the fact that only 2 people were killed (and a couple wounded or injured). Body count is not the only issue.  But the fact that it was all over the news, and also the fear factor...and panic in that Oregon vicinity.   It's stand-alone, notable, and in the light of today's events, somewhat relevant in a way, and poignant. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - A record of national news worthy, highly covered, events, particularly random shootings, are of enormous encyclopedic interest to those researching gun policy, a contentious and highly researched issue. Gsonnenf (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - A record of a specific group of events Ttk371 (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all - I see the keep positions urging keep because the topic meets WP:GNG. However, quantity of source material is only half the story. The topic still needs to meet the second test - WP:NOT, in this case, WP:NOTNEWS. There are many killings in the United States each day, each of which is newsworthy. However, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion per WP:NOTNEWS. The event is recent and, as a timely news subject not suitable for Wikipedia, the topic may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You did not explain why you feel the subject is "not suitable". Why does the article fail WP:NOTNEWS? It received widespread, national media attention&mdash;it seems clear that this is not a routine, minor event of the sort that would fall under NOTNEWS. Most killings receive only local attention&mdash;since this one got national attention, we can see that it deserves special attention here on Wikipedia. Under what circumstances do you consider any killing notable? Everyking (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, as it passes three of the five criteria of WP:NEWSEVENT (WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:DIVERSE), for the other two (WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:EFFECT) it's too soon to make any kind of judgment. Indeed, basically every shooting in the Usa, in spite of any bodycount or circumstance, appears to fail to have any lasting effect in politics and legislations, so judging a shooting only on the basis of the lasting effect would result in deleting almost all the mass shooting happened in the USA. I suggest a review of the article in one year, at least to have elements about the duration of coverage. Cavarrone (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, it also seems the recent school shootings have changed peoples minds. This shooting reicived plenty of attention, shootings are always a big deal in this country.  Jay Jay Talk to me 15:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. No reason to delete this article, as it contains references.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, but merge the two together. The fact that this has been mentioned prominently (by Obama and in several news outlets) in conjunction with the Newtown shooting is sufficient for me. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you feel it should be merged with? Ryan Vesey 19:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep along the lines of Cavarrone's reasoning above. --Lockley (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 19:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment While I've prepared a longer statement on my view of this discussion so far in response to a query on my talk page, it is clear that I neglected to provide a relist statement.  In view of what appeared to me to be shifting views and perhaps shifting evidence regarding WP:LASTING/WP:EFFECT, which the is the key policy-based controversy discussed so far,  I felt the discussion had not quite reached a clear consensus, I also felt that it had not yet reached a point where that consensus was unlikely to be reached.   Is that within the precise remit of WP:RELIST?  Fair question. I believe so, but there are certainly sensible views otherwise, and DRV is the appropriate channel for appeal. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: All of the merge/delete votes were recorded December 12–13, immediately following the event. Since then, all but one of the votes have been to keep this article. I think there is strong consensus here, actually. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep lasting notability with the shootings theme. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Obvious keep, mass shooting with widespread national coverage. Fact it didn't meet technical definition of "mass" because of the number of death is irrelevant. Shadowjams (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: meets notability as national news worthy event in the United States. Quis separabit?  21:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: notable event. — Theo polisme  21:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Now that this is no longer brand new, I see that it meets WP:GNG and WP:EFFECT. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.