Deletion of Clackamas Town Center Shooting

Comment: only the brief, relevant, encyclopedic content to Clackamas Town Center, in accordance with  inclusion policy
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Meets GNG. The  of this shooting and the Connecticut shooting in tandem has already led to some discussion of gun control, which is also notable. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EFFECT)

Comment: for now, as it passes three of the five criteria of  (, , ), for the other two ( and ) 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEWSEVENT||WP:GEOSCOPE||WP:INDEPTH||WP:DIVERSE||WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:EFFECT||WP:EFFECT||WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE)

Comment: 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 " (per
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EFFECT)

Comment: I see the keep positions urging keep because the topic meets . However, quantity of source material is only half the story. The topic still needs to meet the second test - , in this case, NEWS. 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 NEWS. The event is recent and, as a timely news subject not suitable for Wikipedia, the topic may be suitable for our sister project n:Main page|Wikinews
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOT||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I agree with the logic of this AfD, but nominating it for deletion three days after the event isn't appropriate (see: ). 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: Now that this is no longer brand new, I see that it meets  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:EFFECT)