Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 European terror plot

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 keep. –MuZemike 22:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 European terror plot

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are many teror plots and Wikipedia is not for covering the news. TM 19:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is impossible to write a knowledge-type article, as opposed to a news-type entry, on a subject as recent as this one because of the obvious secrecy associated with warfare. This article belongs to a news website, not an encyclopedia. 07:15, October 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T0hierry (talk • contribs) 05:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is possible to write articles dealing with obvious secrecy associated with warfare because there are public disclosures of information, deliberate background disclosures, and inadvertent disclosures. These can be summarized in encyclopedic form. This terror plot has lasting significance based on upon what's now on the record. patsw (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is based on a misapplication or misunderstanding of NOTNEWS which in intended to screen out articles on routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. Politically-motivated terror attacks that are part of a large, international campaigns of political violence are not routine news. This plot qualifies for Wikipedia under Wikipedia:Notability (events) because it received extensive international coverage.[1]. Finally, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. [2] "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). ... Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources..."AMuseo (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism AMuseo (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:N --Wasabi Attack (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are too many "allegedly", "perhaps", "may" to be considered a real threat at this time. This could have simply been chatter. Pending new information which shows actual attempts or steps for a terrorist attack, the article should be deleted. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Allegation and speculation in an article do not make it deletable. A terrorist plot only becomes real when it carried out, and we are not limited to only actual attacks. patsw (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we should be covering all of the terror plots, successful or not, if they are covered by reliable and verifiable sources as this one is. Alansohn (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Terror plots are regularly given Wikipedia articles, for example, 2004 financial buildings plot, 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, 2009 Bronx terrorism plot. To save time for anyone who wishes to bring up Other Stuff Exists, I point out that “In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.” [3]
Keep reasoning doesn't seem to debunk the notability of the subject, it has multiple sources. WookieInHeat (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:N and WP:V--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Personally, I think this article is premature, and we should wait for additional information. But the notability is obvious, and the sources are there, so we need to keep this one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, notability established but as mentioned above, article is written with way too many words of doubt (WP:ALLEGED) and requires quite some rewriting to be presented in a more properly encyclopedic manner. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the near-unanimous keeps above.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Wikireader41 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I only see news coverage, but not notability. There are no suspects, no charges, no trials; there are only vague reports and lots of guessing. It is not even clear what stage the plot was in, or if it was even possible. News coverage does not equal notability. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will try to stay neutral here, but I don't see this news as anything more than premature intelligence material. As Xanderliptak says, there's some news coverage but not notability. No proper investigative process or suspects are apparent. The result of course was a couple more cross-border and drone attacks, and that was it. The type of words used for the event like "risk", "threat" i.e. hardly differentiate it from other similiar past occasions. If these plots really had the heightened seriousness and propensity, I also don't think the country's own army would be vaguely dismissing it as "speculative" and "lacking credibility." The story has a missing substance. Mar4d (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is serious enough for Panetta to visit Pakistan and give a stern warning to Pakistani establishment[4]. Pakistani army has been known to deny each and every plot that has originated in Pakistan including 2008 Mumbai attacks and may indeed be complicit in this.--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's wait and see....andycjp (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per UltraExactZZ above. Keristrasza (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A terrorist plot that didn't even come to pass? So an article about a speculative attack that didn't occur? With no suspects, no trial, etc. Really? Yet again, as an WP:EVENT, there is no historical impact. This will be a useful sentence in an article on Al-Qaeda terrorism, but is otherwise non-notable. I would also note that if the article is deleted, the information is not lost, it can be WP:INCUBATEd, userfied, or just sit accessible only to admins until more info comes along. Of course, I appear to be the only person who reads WP:EVENT in this way! Bigger digger (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities, which is what NOTNEWS intends to exclude.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UltraExactZZ. Needs a more precise title and serious copyediting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But needs serious revision. Jmatz (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per brewcrewer.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since drone strikes based on this intelligence resulted in what can be arguably a turning point in the use of drone strikes. This is the year that drone strikes escalated heavily, and this is the key reason so far made public with the level of specifics released. Though qualified at this juncture, this will be made more substantiated and verified as more intelligence can be released. It is the best compilation of the coverage about this event that I have read thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.47.85 (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or rename Granted the article is well sourced, but event itself is wishy-washy as to what actually happened. Why does it warrant a page on itself. On can shorted it to 2 paras and add on to the Taliban pages. Alternatively, a less vague title would be good too.(Lihaas (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC));[reply]

Comment: I agree that the details are not all available but that is the nature of the plot. ( unless you think Al-qaeda keeps detailed documentation of its plots in the cave where its main office is - and that these may one day fall in to the hands of victorious coalition forces). I also think this is the first such plot which has led to a continent wide travel advisory and unprecedented increase in drone strikes which makes it cross the threshold envisaged in WP:N--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable event prompting travel alerts in several countries, likely higher notability than the Times Square plot, and connected to the drone attacks in Pakistan that killed European nationals. ~A H 1^(TCU) 22:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (defective nom.) The nomination is a form of WP:ALLORNOTHING. This story has significance beyond immediate news and this article does pass WP:EVENT. patsw (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even as the story is in multiple papers, the source is singular (all those cooperating agencies), they only publish stories (no evidence), and it is glued together with assumptions, theories, "belief that", "concern", "No further evidence". In The Guardian states already that there is a continuous stream of threats -- so it's only one of multiple. The only action taken is drone attacks, which are SOP in the region. Not notable, not even news, except for a PR-show Pravda style by the military. No need for this in an encyclopedia. -DePiep (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's an argument for improvement, not deletion per policy. patsw (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RS have one source: the joint press release by the Intel community. The next ten RSs we check will have published that same story. There is no more. And there is no checkable evidence for their statements, just guesses, conjunctions and so on. Then the Guardian paper writes: they say it's business as usual. (I wonder, do they know themselves why they printed it?). Nothing of substance for an encyclopedia. Now what is there for us to improve in an uncheckable, story? -DePiep (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment multiple independent intelligence sources have said the same thing. even though the details are sketchy and may never be completely known the Impact is well established and that is what makes this plot notable. First the increase in drone strikes is unprecedented and has been linked by multiple RS to the plot. Second the Continent wide travel advisory is unprecedented too. you may not believe that this is real but looks like many governments do. The notability of this article is based on its impact. IMO it is immaterial if it is real or not per WP:TRUTH. clearly this has got intense media coverage as envisaged by WP:SIGCOV.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article was created by a POV-pushing ban-evading sockpuppet. Later additions are are more of the same. -DePiep (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a news story, at this early date there is no way to assess its lasting effect, as such it fails both WP:Notability (events) (albiet a guideline) and WP:What Wikipedia is not (a policy). J04n(talk page) 17:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please see my comment above for the Effect of this plot.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:EVENT, the article should be improved though. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV push. Key word is alleged in the lead. An ephemeral news story at best, quite possibly no more than self-serving propaganda of the multi-billiion dollar international "security" industry. —Carrite, Oct. 6, 2010.

Comment No argument, the article should be improved. And there are some arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. What we are here to determine whether or not this article is notable, per provided sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2010 (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.