Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Olympics attack on American nationals (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crashingthewaves (talk | contribs) at 12:58, 13 August 2008 (→‎2008 Olympics attack on American nationals). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

2008 Olympics attack on American nationals

AfDs for this article:
2008 Olympics attack on American nationals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is a second nomination. The first was withdrawn by the nominator. I am resubmitting it. This is a tragic, but not especially notable event. It's unfortunate that this type of thing happens all the time. There is no indication that this has any historical significance. Elliskev 16:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't verifiability and notability two separate criteria? --Elliskev 17:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. To be notable it ought to pass WP:N. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the guideline WP:NOTE – "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." --Elliskev 17:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. :). I've never seen the crystal ball argument turned around like that. --Elliskev 17:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nei, more like the article itself is crystal balling. .:davumaya:. 17:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is asserting it's not notable, without giving a reason for that assertion, whereas various reasons have been given why it is notable. It's a bad-faith, deletionist nomination, especially as a previous attempt was just defeated withdrawn hours before this one was posted, as the notability questions had been met, in his opinion. which, as I understand it, is against the rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith? Thanks for that assumption. --Elliskev 22:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate your letting me know about the nomination, so I might be overstating things. But to post it for deletion again, after the previous nominator withdrew it, and for the same issues that the original nominator concluded were settled, is disruptive behavior. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier debate was deeply flawed. It started as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Bachman and was summarily altered to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Olympics attack on American nationals midway through the debate, then was withdrawn by one editor (granted, the nominator) when there was a variety of opinions around keep/merge/delete. This debate was always going to happen because the first attempt was problematic. WWGB (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm rather concerned over the debate of the previous AfD. One particular comment went the press is going wild with this one as a justification for keep. And since AfD is not a vote I wonder on what grounds the admin closed the previous AfD(was withdrawn by contributor, thus we never heard judgement by an admin). Anyway back to policy. WP:N#OBJ Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage. Isn't this why we have Wikinews? Perhaps editors do not even know Wikinews exists and may be blurring the idea that news is for Wikinews and Wikipedia is for knowledge. .:davumaya:. 17:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I reposted this from the talk page I'm sure they meant to say it here) .:davumaya:. 18:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Another thing, there is so much wrong with the logic of even considering deleting or merging this article. 1. This is an ongoing event. 2. The people suggesting amending this page should be better occupied with more worthy matters, SORRY. 3. You are almost all misguided... Wikipedia is not supposed to be this bureaucratic. Lastly, this topic deserves a separate page from the side-issues regarding Olympic matters, international conflicts or sporting events. Back to our regularly scheduled program and please stop over-thinking things and doing too much. Bye. Crashingthewaves (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll need to hear a Q&A interpretation of that comment from the OP. I don't think I follow it. --Elliskev 18:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge and Redirect - First I would like to thank Elliskev for letting me know of this discussion. However, I think it is strange that after its first nom, 24 hours ago it is being resubmitted for AfD. Can we not wait a few days? --mboverload@ 18:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concern. I resubmitted with similar reasoning. There was less that 24 hours of discussion the first go-round. I think that there is value hearing from more people on this. --Elliskev 18:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I'm just going to cut and paste my reasoning from the last AFD (and thanks to Elliskev for letting me know about it). My logic really hasn't changed since then. "As murders go, this one is pretty notable. The press is already going wild with this one, and no doubt will continue to do so. The title of it does seem a bit unwieldy though, perhaps a name change?" Umbralcorax (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Happens all the time"? Does that mean murders happen all the time? That's true, but: China is suddenly a major center of worldwide attention because of the Olympic Games; these people were not only there to attend the Games but were the family of a former Olympic athlete and an Olympic coach, and the event is getting worldwide publicity precisely because of that confluence of circumstances. The murder victim, Todd Bachman, also has some claim to notability in his own right, even if this event had never happened. As I've said elsewhere, I never give any thought to gardening, buying flowers, etc., so I am remote from their market, but nonetheless I know what their logo and their distinctive trucks look like. Ergo, they are known. There's a reason why USA Today called the murder victim "a noted horticulturalist". Michael Hardy (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and suggest close - Article establishes notability.  Asenine  19:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly a Wikinews item, and definitely belonging there. Just as clearly, does not belong in Wikipedia at this time as its' own article. Elliskev summarized it effectively. Will it belong in Wikipedia evetually? Perhaps... consider, for example, Munich Massacre. But I rather doubt it - my spider sense suggests this will fall into obscurity in less than one year. Hence, not notable. 98.215.48.213 (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. Most of the stuff in this article is covered in the Concerns article besides. D.M.N. (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This passes notability guidelines, but so do lots of news-of-the-week items. There isn't enough worth saying about the topic to merit a separate article. Merge all relevant content somewhere appropriate (take this to mean that you should consider me part of a consensus for basically any reasonable merge target), such as Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. We can always spin it back off into its own article if it somehow needs to be. Croctotheface (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's my main concern about this article, that at the moment, there is no news beyond what's already or mostly covered in that "Concerns" article. Notability is unquestionable. The need for a separate article, at this time, is debatable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stabbings happen all of the time. The person who attacked them was mentally ill, so it was not politically motivated. These people weren't notable before they got stabbed. No one will remember this in a few weeks. --Tocino 20:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Since it is asserted above that Todd Bachman was notable independent of this event, do you have any counterarguments rather than just an assertion? Why did USA today call him "a noted horticulturalist"? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last I read (correct me if my news is out of date), there was no known motive, so you have no basis for that statement. In any case, mental illness and political motivation are not mutually exclusive. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Todd Bachmann's notability is that he was stabbed at the 2008 Olympics in a "controversial" country. There are dozens of CEOs out there who have founded their own companies, CEOs are fired and hired often, and we don't devote a whole series of articles to say Cargill's CEOs. Bachmann's own notability is weak in the context of the Olympics. Is it because he is the father of a daughter who isn't competing but happens to be the wife of the U.S. volleyball team coach? Perhaps its because we have termed the article as an "attack" instead of a more descriptive stabbing or in legal terms an assault. Attack connotes intention thus falsely motivating notability for this article. .:davumaya:. 21:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What do you mean by "attack connotes intention"? Are you saying this man did not intend to stab these people? Or are you saying that the word "attack" implies there was premeditation? If it is the first case, he had some pretty bad aim (and bad luck) if he was just trying to chop up some chicken for dinner. If it is the second case, "attack" means there was an attack! That is why we have wonderful adjectives like "premeditated" in order to discern between "premeditated" attacks and "impulsive, spur-of-the-moment, dancing in the rain, breeze blowin' on my naked balls" attacks. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Notability is a splint in the eyes of the beholder. I've never heard about it (in Germany), maybe it is notable only in the U.S.? But nevertheless I say Merge it into something more bigger, maybe for all nations, crimes, non sports negative events ...? Thank you Sebastian scha. (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is more notable than a typical murder suicide, because the victims were foreigners, and supposedly attacks on foreigners are rare in China, therefore this is not common, the attack was covered widely in the media, and there is an abundance of sources. Also contrary to what some have suggested, there is no verifiable proof the perpetrator was suffering from any mental health issues Thisglad (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A host of notable, reliable sources have covered this substantially enough to write at least a short, verifiable article. Whether this "happens all the time" or not, an awful lot of professional journalists seem to think this is notable. "I don't like it" is not an acceptable rationale for deletion. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about why you would oppose merging. There's lots of content here that meets WP:N guidelines but is covered under the auspices of a single article. Why is this information better presented as a separate article than merged into something else? Croctotheface (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merging this into the "concerns" article would not be appropriate in my opinion. The article being discussed here doesn't cover "concerns," but rather past events. However, as I said in the first AfD, "If someone devises a better article title to cover this and other events like it, great." DickClarkMises (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The information itself is, in my opinion, notable. However, it is notable because it is part of the larger picture of the Olympics and not so much on its own. Andrew647 20:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. This information isn't particularly notable as-is, and would be much better if integrated into a general article about security issues during the games. It is certainly far too much details for the main 2008 Summer Olympics article: the "concerns" article was split from the main article to allow us to go into these issues in more detail. Bluap (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, at least until a later date. Similar attacks such as the Akihabara massacre have individual articles, and this attack is not something that can be wholly attached to "Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics". An article about the Olympics does not seem to be an appropriate place to describe a perpetrator, motives, modus operandi, investigation, or consequences of an attack; rather a place to shortly discuss the event with a {{main}} tag. Notability is plausible based on the nature of the attack, implicit relevance to and influence on the Olympics, as well as international and U.S. presidential recognition. As a side note, the name of the article would possibly be more appropriate if renamed in a manner that does not overlook the Chinese tour guide.   — C M B J   22:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but for heaven's sake rename it - it's a notable event because of who was involved, the timing of the attack, and the fact that Beijing is being widely reported in Olympics coverage as a relatively safe community, thus suggesting that this kind of thing does not, in fact, happen all the time. The naming of the article is sensationalist and, to be frank, bloody awful. On first seeing it I began to wonder if American nationals across the board were being targeted either at or because of the 2008 Summer Olympics. But lo, it's two individuals (and their Chinese tour guide). Find a new name. But still keep it. -- roleplayer 23:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although we know that if it hadn't been for the Olympics these particular people wouldn't have been where they were we don't know at this stage that it definitely is because of the Olympics that this has happened. It has other notability factors, as I pointed out above. Besides I'm with CMBJ here - over time a lot more about the incident can fill out the article. It's new, and if it hasn't changed after six months I'd be happy to nominate it to be merged somewhere. -- roleplayer 00:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, many articles face the same neglect. However, when all factors are taken into consideration, this does not always relate to notability. Some of the articles are necessary content forks, and will likely be the focus of related WikiProjects in the distant future.   — C M B J   08:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename in a maner that reflects that one victim was Chinese. The murder is notable because of the timing and the fact that Todd Bachman's daughter is a former olympian and his son-in-law is a current olympic coach. He was also the CEO of a moderatly large corporation. Bachman's floral has 29 retail stores, employs 1,100 to 1,600 and in 2005 Bachmans did $81 million in business. (found in an AP report - [2]. Although a few comments have stated that CEOs come and go, Bachman's is a family run business, and Todd Bachman likely would have remained CEO for some time, unlike one users example of CEOs of Cargil. There are also plenty of reliable sources about the attack, Elizabeth Bachman, and Bachman's Floral. I do not support merging to Concerns of the 2008 Summer Olympics per concerns brought up in previous comments. -JWGreen (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to 2008 Summer Olympics related crime and repurpose for a greater use. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename 2008 Olympics attack on tourists, as the current title suggests there was a wide-scale attack on American nationals at the 2008 Olympics, rather than an isolated attack. The conclusion reached at the deletion debate for the murder of Tim McLean (aka the "Greyhound passenger beheading incident") is that certain homicides are notable even when the victim or the killer is not. Also, the article should be expanded (by the Heymann standard). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just one problem, the Chinese tour guide (also attacked) was not a tourist. I have reverted your bold (but premature) move. WWGB (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while sad for the families, it is news, therefore verifiable, but not notable. Attacks on tourists visiting foreign cities happen from time to time. In this case they were visiting an ancient Drum Tower, not an Olympic venue, so the title "Olympics attack" is somewhat misleading. If Chinese tourists were attacked during a visit to California so that they could visit Disneyland, would there be an article about 2008 Disneyland attack on Chinese nationals? However, this incident and security and law enforcement concerns in general could have a place in Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 10:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. The event is notable because of the world-wide media attention, the Olympics, and the connections to the volleyball team. If the victims were only tourists attending the Olympics, the argument would be less compelling, but the event had a material effect on the volleyball competition (the coach wasn't present at one of the games, at least).--Appraiser (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As if there was any doubt of what I said in the past. I want to bring up a few points. I am decidedly not in favor of "heavyhanded" approaches to journalism; what happened to being semi-professional, Wikipedians? This is exactly why some people dispute the importance of this website. It is supposed to be a true representation of facts, not conjectures. Besides Appraiser makes a good point: the coach is still not present at Team USA's games. Another coach is filling in for him.

The arguments on this page are often stupefying in their idiocy. Why are we disputing the impact of this matter? The notability question has long been settled: Todd Bachman was quite known. Bachman's Inc. is a company of substantial size. I submit that the people who want this article removed do not know what the word newsworthy means. It isn't like there haven't been incidents at other Olympics, there have. It is irrelevant whether or not the crime was premeditated, abetted by terrorists. The facts are plain. There are two connections to Olympic participants. End of story, move on to some other topic. Crashingthewaves (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It is Wikinews material. The event is not notable by its own, did not have any consequences on Chinese security policies or the normal course of the Olympics or the behavior of tourists and athletes. Eklipse (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NEWSFLASH No longer on CNN.com front page. Oops. No additional security measures taken [3]. Oops. Games go on after 'random act of violence'

Tourists seem to accept officials' claim that attack was isolated incident [4] Oops. Well the media sure is going wild over this. ::blatant eye roll:: .:davumaya:. 22:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. However, WP:N/CA is a proposed guideline. --Elliskev 01:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that it isn't one, just that the guideline exists. I simply think that it's notable enough for coverage, and that it couldn't all fit under the headline of "concerns". Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 02:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I understand. --Elliskev 02:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming to 2008 Olympics attack on tourists completely overlooks the fact that one of those attacked was a tour guide, not a tourist. WWGB (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What else could it be named? I don't have any other ideas. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stabbing of people by a man in Beijing. I don't see how this could be remotely notable. The only thing that makes it stand out from all the other crimes that were committed in Beijing on that day was that some of the victims were American. Unless this has provoked a diplomatic incident or suchlike (and it didn't), there is no difference between it and all the other assaults or homicides that happen everywhere, every day. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has significant media coverage. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not again, Elliskev. You are incorrigible; people have complained about your "editing" before. You were previously accused of engaging in editing wars. Wikipedia is not the forum for your activities. This event is not one that is over-exaggerated. You obviously don't know about the terrorism at the Atlanta Games or in Munich. Enough is enough. Keep this article. Crashingthewaves (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be taken seriously on Wikipedia, I suggest you read (and follow) Wikipedia:No personal attacks. WWGB (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't seriously be comparing a pathological killing of an athlete's relative to terrorism at Atlanta or Munich... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. I'm getting it from every direction lately. Anyway... Comment It's becoming pretty clear to me that there is no consensus to delete this article. A merge/redirect into something sounds reasonable. If that's the result, I'll continue my "activities" at the talk page. --Elliskev 12:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This thing had "international interest" while it was fresh and unresolved. Now the perpetrator has been identified, his motives have been confirmed, the case is closed. The case will have zero lasting impact on the world, despite what some editor thinks about baseball customers in the twin cities (whatever that is). If this deletion nomination achieves no consensus now, I am confident that consensus will be established in two weeks' time when the world forgets about it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentThe Twin Cities of Minneapolis-Saint Paul is a metropolitan area in Minnesota. And I have no clue where you got baseball from. Bachman's is a landscape and floral company, and if not the largest, it is one of the largest in the Upper Midwest. Judging by your edit history you edit mainly articles relating to China. While it may not seem notable in China, it is notable here in the United States. Worldwide notability is not a criteria of WP:N as I remember it. -JWGreen (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ASSUME makes an ass of U and Me, JWGreen. In my part of the world, the Twin Cities means Albury-Wodonga. So is your argument now that this murder is notable because the victim is connected with a company which may be notable in the restricted geographical region of the Upper Midwest? I doubt that the largest "landscape and floral company" is itself notable, but even if it is, the murder of its boss is not, without more, notable enough to warrant an article. If it was, there would be an article on the man himself first. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be the first one to admit that if that was the only clame to notabiltiy that it wouldn't be notable at all. Combine all claims to notability together (CEO, Father of Olympic athlete, in Beijing for Olympics, Father-in-law of a Olympic coach, one victim an Olympic athlete, timing of the attack durring the olympics, etc) all add up to be more notable. Such is the case with articles such as Murder of Dru Sjodin, which wouldn't have been notable had only one condition of notability been present. Any of that make any sense or am I going off the deep end here? -JWGreen (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was following right up until "one victim an Olympic athlete". Huh? WWGB (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry... one member of the party attacted was an Olympic athlete. -JWGreen (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beijing tourist attack ... is not an appropriate title as one victim was not a tourist. WWGB (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very ambiguous and complex event from a naming perspective. A tourist attack could imply that a tour guide was also injured, but I'll go ahead and withdraw the suggestion if it is easily misconceived.   — C M B J   11:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into main article - comparisons with the terrorist attacks at Atlanta and Munich step waaaaay over the mark. Random killing, wrong place, wrong time, coincidental to the Olympics. Will barely be remembered outside the families in a fortnight. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, this isn't even funny, but I can't get over a chuckle at how asinine this debate has become. Palaceguard, you are corrupt. Your name is wack too. WWGB, you are also wrong. What can you two possibly gain from creating a ruckus? What justification do you have for any of this nonsense? Just give up, move to another zipcode or country, you lost. It isn't a personal attack; you guys are just a tad moronic and acting a little like buffoons. I realize that a consensus can not always be had. Furthermore, really weak-minded people look for holes in arguments that are as ironclad as the ones we have brought up. The sad part of all of this is what is BEING LOST in the discussion. Do you naysayers even watch any Olympic events? Do you pay attention to the huge story the VOLLEYBALL teams for the US thinks this is? What about the other athletes???? You nuts need to back off and go somewhere. Quit trying to get me or other conscientous people to bite at your horrifically stupid stuff. Last thing for now: the fact that this incident was ONE circumstance is irrelevant; also it occurred five miles from Beijing. The worldwide media recognizes this as still being an Olympic matter. Bye clowns!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2008_Olympics_attack_on_American_nationals_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=231673483"