Deletion of Clackamas Town Center shooting

Comment: 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 , we have deleted some and kept some.  I think this event lies on the 'keep' side
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:OUTCOMES)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (:WP:RS)

Comment: http://www.koin.com/news/oregon/oregonians-rush-to-arm-themselves 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 , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: 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  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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EFFECT)