Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tacoma Mall 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   no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Tacoma Mall shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT Transcendence (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Nobody even died in this event, and it was not very notable. It can just have a mention in the Tacoma Mall page. Cyanidethistles (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete of no lasting significance, fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT, wrong project should be in wikinews.  LGA talk  edits   00:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Continuing coverage over multiple years in multiple major national news sources, already present in article at time of nomination. Notability is defined by coverage in reliable sources, and this has plenty.  NOT is not applicable, and NEVENT was clearly met--above !votes and nomination are simply not accurate. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT is very relevant, it says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.....Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews" and NEVENT talks about "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." and "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." neither is the case here. You mentioned "Continuing coverage over multiple years in multiple major national news sources" please list them .  LGA talk  edits   04:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to read 1) the article, to see the enduring coverage of the shooter, who himself has no article and is only covered in this context per WP:BIO1E, and 2) WP:NTEMP, which explains that if the GNG is met, it stays met. Also, I note that this account claims to be a clean start account. May I have your assurance that you have never participated in any other prior deletion discussion with me under any previous username? Jclemens (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Coverage of the armed citizen who tried to intervene: from 2010.  Google news archive search turns up plenty more from 2005-2006.
 * Coverage of the jailed shooter, and his wife: from 2011.  Here's one about his escape attempt   Note that neither are Washington State media outlets.
 * Coverage of a random passerby who helped out in the aftermath, from 2008:.
 * So, as you can see, even though there's plenty sufficient coverage in the article itself, there's way more out there freely available on the web. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that notability is not temporary, but routine news reporting (WP:PRIMARYNEWS) does not confer that notability, that's why WP:NOT uses the term enduring. What would convince me to change to keep is a good secondly source (a book or journal) that covers the crime in some detail and explains why it is special, why is it more than a news story; none of those news reports do that.  LGA talk  edits   06:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The governing sentence is in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Your expectation is unreasonable and not policy based. WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an essay that goes beyond what NOTNEWSPAPER says--it describes policy as some want it to be, not as it actually is. Jclemens-public (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, the governing sentence in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is "the most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.", backed up by the trust of WP:NEVENT, when it talks about "Lasting effects" - An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance and events have significant impact over a wide region. Not only do i beilive this is the intent of the poilicy, it is also logical - news for a newspaper (wikinews) not an encyclopaedia.  LGA talk  edits   20:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct your quote, please. Regardless, a shooting and ensuing hostage situation, that's seen coverage in multiple years and multiple ways since is not "most newsworthy events". MOST newsworthy events are covered once, in a small-town paper somewhere, and never come up again.  This event has international coverage, coverage that lasts over years, coverage that follows the perp to prison, and the would-be hero into physical therapy rehab.  You did note that it's been covered in a TV episode, right? Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep for passing NEVENT, I echo Jclemens' sound and accurate analysis, delete votes appear to be inaccurate in their arguments. Cavarrone 12:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. It passes the "lasting effect" criterion because events described on the page cover a period of time of over six years. My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Userfy for inclusion in a future List of mall shootings; sources don't have the "national or global scope" required by WP:EVENT.  Mini  apolis  17:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Jclemens has provided more than adequate information that this has a lasting effect. While such events may not seem noteworthy outside their immediate area of local interest...having sources that are outside that region indicates it is of more than just local notability--MONGO 20:47, 8 August 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.