Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsuda Sanzō

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 redirect to Ōtsu incident. Obviously isn't getting deleted, and most everyone seems to want to merge or redirect it, but to be honest, most of the article is already covered at Ōtsu incident. Any snippets of info I missed in the article are, of course, still in history, so have at it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsuda Sanzō[edit]

Only notable for one thing. There is more information on him in the article on that one thing: Otsu incident than in his article. - Steve Dufour (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Leonard^(Bloom) 19:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We tend to have articles on assassins: John Wilkes Booth, for instance, even they are only known for a single event. Deleting this one seems like systemic bias and won't be consistent with other parts of Wikipedia. Finally, that the article is short is, as always, a call for improvement not deletion. -- Taku (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he is an assassin, yet he did not kill his intended victim. There also does not seem to be any reason to believe he was an assassin in the original sense of the word, a professional killer in the service of political interests. -Steve Dufour (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So he is not an assassin, contrary to what the article says? Then the article has to be changed accordingly. Also, assassins are still assassins if their attempts are failed, by the definition of the word, as I understand. I also don't think we have to think about the motivation behind the assassination, which is irrelevant to the question of the notability. My counter-argument thus still stands: if one is known for "assassination", successful or not, then he (or she) is still considered notable. -- Taku (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other article says that the "politically correct" view of him in Japan is that he was mentally ill. So we don't know for sure that he even intended to kill the man. The opening sentence really should be something like: "Tauda Sanzo attacked Prince Nicholas of Russia with a sword in 1891." Steve Dufour (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as per nom. The article seems unlikely to ever grow beyond a stub; the subject is notable only for one event; there is a lack of significant coverage of the subject aside from his actions. When assassins get their own articles, it is usually because they catapulted to celebrity in their own right -- media articles of the time and histories consider aspects of their lives independent of the singular event. This assassin doesn't appear to meet that bar. RayAYang (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion, change to Merge to Ōtsu incident. Article can always be branched back out later. RayAYang (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the argument. However, he seems like a kind of assassin who was unsuccessful in the attempt but was successful in gaining notoriety. Here are few links I found via Google. [1] [2] [3]. In particular, according to [4], his name appears in history textbooks used in a school. Finally, what makes you think the article cannot be more than a stub (which is not a good deletion argument by the way)? Did you actually read the corresponding ja article? -- Taku (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This must be re-written as Tsuda was an attempted assassin, or maybe a failed trained assassin. The Otsu incident which this is related was a large event in Japan so for this alone he attains notoriety so the page should be kept. Yes this is a good example of Wikipedia's systemic bias to western events.Yama88 (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is sadly true, and somewhat unavoidable, at least in the English language version of Wikipedia. Should English-language sources (or suitable translations) be found to attest to notability, I should be happy to reverse my position. RayAYang (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We in the West don't know much about Asian history. I found the Ōtsu incident article outstanding. -Steve Dufour (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To establish the notability of a topic, Japanese sources are sufficient. (Because the "notability" in wikipedia doesn't mean notability in English-speaking world.) Where did you hear otherwise? (Also, see my post above.) -- Taku (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why are we even having this discussion? At the very least, this seems like a poster child for WP:BEFORE: Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD. My !vote is Keep, and if it is turned into a redirect, so be it. Neier (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Maybe I should have proposed a merge. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes keep or merge but please don't delete.Yama88 (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to merge to Ōtsu incident then. I have already added the picture from this article to that one. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this article on yet another birdbrain to the article on his incompetent murder attempt. Pardon me for being pointy here, but in general I don't think that murderers, torturers, child-molesters, rapists etc merit articles, especially articles graced with their photos. (In case you're wondering, no, this isn't my personal view, which would be that their very names, though not their crimes, should be allowed to sink into oblivion. Nothing ethnocentric about this: if I were the monarch of Wikipedia I'd zap the article on these nitwits too.) There could be circumstances that override this; here, there aren't. -- Hoary (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, tell us how you really feel? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Hoary. Given the depth of coverage, or lack thereof, a redirect to Ōtsu incident doesn't seem unreasonable at all. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ultra. IceUnshattered (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.