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

2008 Olympics attack on American nationals

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 The first was withdrawn by the nominator.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]

Additional comment I realize where the discussion was going, and I understand the reasoning behind the withdrawal. However, I think that this requires more discussion. The open-close window was too narrow to garner enough input. --Elliskev 17:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it passes WP:V and is thus notable.--WhoopRoot (talk) 17:27, 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]

Keep The nominator does not likely have a crystal ball, and thus is no position to know whether it's notable or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:45, 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]

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 And since AfD is not a vote ~~I wonder on what grounds the admin closed the previous AfD~~(was withdrawn by contributor, thus we never heard judgement by an admin).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 - 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]