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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Clackamas Town Center shooting
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:EVENT is not satisfied. No long-term coverage or any lasting effect. Sad, but not notable. "When President Barack Obama delivered a speech regarding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, he mentioned other shooting rampages that occurred in the U.S. within previous months, including the incident at the Clackamas Town Center" ...are you kidding me? Beerest355 Talk 00:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I live down the road from Portland. While there have been shooting incidents in Oregon that pass muster in terms of lasting, historical impact (the Kip Kinkel school shooting comes to mind), this one, I feel, does not. WP:NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll get out of the way to ease the closing administrator's decision. Carrite (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - this was previously nominated for deletion in December 2012 under a slightly different title (I've added the AFD above). There was a laundry list of non-policy (almost non-content) keep !votes and an almost-supervote close based on the number of hits the article was getting at the time (actually an argument in favour of a WP:NOTNEWS view). I share the nominator's view - are you kidding me? This failed NOTNEWS then and it fails that same standard now. With the benefit of 9 months hindsight we can see WP:EFFECT was really never in play. Without being too dispassionate about it, hopefully that 9 months will also allow editors to contribute to this discussion with policy-based arguments rather than emotive nonsense. Stalwart 111  05:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Bodycount not high enough? Sickening.  This is a notable event in the history of mass shootings in the United States.  Particularly for what didn't happen (there were only three dead) and for the method in which it was stopped - an armed citizen.  Also, The President of the United States has cited this incident in a broader narrative with respect to gun control in the United States and people conducting presidential research or research into this period might want to get more detail on what a president was talking about.  The article documents what happened.  A cursory search on Google currently reveals 96,000 articles that reference the event. There is also the question of balance on the wiki - if every mass shooting that is stopped by an armed defender is deemed not notable then we are left with only the scenarios where a mass shooter actually carries out his acts in an unhindered fashion - presenting a skewed view of reality.  Aurora is notable but this is not?  Why? because the folks at NBC decide to keep talking about Aurora but not Clackamas because it doesn't fit their narrative?  Because the Aurora shooter got to the magic bodycount level?  We should keep these and we should elevate the heros to their proper place rather than the perpetrators of these horrific acts.  This deletion request appears to be politically driven.  The mass media might determine which events they want to keep in the spotlight but they should not determine the documentation of history.  Politically motivated editors should not delete articles with impunity either.  Historically, mass shootings occur and they are fairly rare events but when those events occur, they are notable in history of the US.  If we delete this work from the Wiki, then 20 years from now when someone is researching what happened, they won't be able to find anything on the Wiki?  effectively erased from history?  Seems wrong.  But you guys do what you want - you're going to anyway. -Justanonymous (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - sadly, in the modern U.S., this does not rise to the level of notability. The assertion that "an armed citizen stopped it" blatantly contradicts the actual information in the article, and seems to be a red herring introduced by distorted accounts in pro-gun publications, rather than anything from reliable sources. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  13:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: easily meets WP:GNG.  Just because the media is finished hyping coverage of this event is not a reason to erase the record.  —EncMstr (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - in my opinion it meets WP:GNG, also notability is not temporary. Once deemed notable doesnt get non-notable just because the event doesnt get as uch press by time.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:EVENT trumps WP:GNG. If we used the GNG for everything, we'd have an articles on all kinds of stupid things that were in the news once. Also, yes, it does get non-notable if there is not as much press. An event must have persisting coverage and some sort of a lasting effect. This was sad, but a routine crime. Beerest355 Talk 18:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The president of the US doesn't just reference all kinds of stupid things, to use your vernacular. For better or worst this was part of a broader discourse in 2013 about gun control.  It was highly cited by politicians and is part of presidential and congressional record. It's a notable event and meets WP:EVENT and WP:GNG.  It's in the same group as the Sikh temple shooting, aurora, and Newtown.  It's notable because it happened at a time when the national discourse was laser focused on things like this. It's also a decent article.-Justanonymous (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think this shows continued coverage and a long-term effect, but who knows, as apparently I'm the only one who looked for sources per WP:BEFORE, which despite me continuing telling people it is required for notability deletions, the nominators just keep ignoring it. Plus, there was the other lady who had some sort of extreme PTSD and died months later, which I do not see covered in the article. Of course, even EVENT says this would be notable: "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 (as described below)." It does not have to have all of the elements, they are simply a list of items that may cause an event to be notable. Much like in BIO, you do not have to meet POLITICIAN and ARTIST, just one or the other. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Aboutmovies, and he said it better than I can. Never mind that President Obama mentioned the incident in a speech to ban weapons, per Justanonymous.  Based on WP:OUTCOMES, we have deleted some and kept some.  I think this event lies on the 'keep' side. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep High-profile event with massive news coverage → notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * An interesting AfD with compelling comments. This one will be followed and watched quite well, I suspect. Please add new comments below this notice, do please be civil and AGF. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 15:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2013 (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.