Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Manhattan terrorism plot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. The general consensus in this discussion is that the event has adequate notability for inclusion even though it's a news event. Deryck C. 20:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2011 Manhattan terrorism plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTNEWS, The article is about a recent alleged terrorism plot. this source says that the case is not being dealt with on a federal level because it was not considered strong enough to secure a conviction. In my opinion, this article should be userfied until such time as the GNG can be satisfied Quasihuman | Talk 14:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This alleged terrorism plot has at this point over 500 instances of news coverage in many languages from countries all over the world. WP:NOTNEWS is intended to avoid having encyclopedia articles about routine crimes, celebrity coverage, routine news announcement, and like things which are not of enduring importance. Terror plots from years past have in fact gained continuing coverage, and have been found to be encyclopedic, by surviving AFDs. Worried that this does not satisfy GNG? Note the 500+ instances of "significant coverage in reliable and independent sources." GNG is easily satisfied by many news events of far less importance than alleged and prosecuted plots to commit mass murder for terrorist purposes. We added NOTNEWS to avoid Wikipedia being a mirror of every water-cooler story or routine crime story, which this is not. This case has already been noted as the first instance of trying alleged terrorists under a New York state law rather than a federal law. Edison (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is exactly the sort of "article" that WP:NOTNEWS describes. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please elaborate. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Per Edison. This is clearly a notable topic which will continue to garner significant media coverage throughout the trial, similar to the 2009 Bronx terrorism plot. The plot also has longer-term ramifications for national security and homegrown terrorism. This afd seems more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT because there's not a snowball's chance in hell this article is going to be deleted. Please go for the speedy keep. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per plot spoiler. Broccolo (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, number of google news results is not a reliable metric for significant coverage, as it includes many sources that might be considered unreliable, and only indicates quantity, not quality of coverage. Plot Spoilers argument that this topic will continue to garner significant coverage is a bit of a WP:CRYSTAL argument. As for accusations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I have not expressed my opinion of the events in my nomination, so how does that apply? Quote from WP:IDONTLIKEIT: "while some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted", I have never (to my memory) !voted on an AfD involving terrorism, I really don't see how that applies. The 2009 Bronx terrorism plot involves a plot in which the protagonists were convicted, this is only an alleged plot (it should actually be titled Alleged 2011 Manhattan terrorism plot), It only may have long term consequences if it turns out to be true, and the federal agencies decision not to prosecute indicates that it probably does not have national security implications. Quasihuman | Talk 22:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also note that an accusation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is essentially an accusation of attempted censorship of material "delete this because I don't like it" and is not something to be thrown around lightly & without evidence.Quasihuman | Talk 22:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for the brusque suggestion. Still think this is clearly WP:SNOW and not WP:CRYSTAL, because it is the objective reality that this case will continue to receive notable media coverage, as other cases of this magnitude have in the past. This is not going to change. The Mayor of New York, the DA of the city, and NYPD police commissioner all commented on the issue, and this will continue to be a high-profile case. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Apology accepted. Quasihuman | Talk 11:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for the brusque suggestion. Still think this is clearly WP:SNOW and not WP:CRYSTAL, because it is the objective reality that this case will continue to receive notable media coverage, as other cases of this magnitude have in the past. This is not going to change. The Mayor of New York, the DA of the city, and NYPD police commissioner all commented on the issue, and this will continue to be a high-profile case. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep notable high profile criminal plot. as per WP:N/CA. 2 people have been arrested and charged. even if they are acquitted at a later point this would be a notable event documenting Islamophobia some allege is sweeping the USA.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On the matter of potential national security implications, this source says that the federal authorities thought that the event did not have national security implications, and that it was being dealt with at a state level because of this. Quasihuman | Talk 23:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But the evidence changed with the sting operation... Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- and where in WP guidelines does it say that the case has to have "national security implications" in order to be considered notable enough for an article?--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't, but that was an argument used by Plot Spoiler as to why the article is notable, see above, it is only fair to bring that into question if it was raised by another editor. Plot Spoiler, can you substantiate that with a source? Did the feds change their minds with this new evidence? The sting operation apparently took place on 11 May, the article cited in my comment above is dated 14 May and does not mention this evidence. Quasihuman | Talk 12:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think as we already established this has no bearing on afd. Not worth looking back into. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We didn't establish that, we established that there are no guidelines that say that the case has to have national security implications in order to be notable. If the incident did have national security implications, that might increase its notability, therefore it is important to establish whether that is true or not. Plot Spoiler rightly raised this as one reason for notability, I'm just trying to establish whether it is true or not. Quasihuman | Talk 16:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes we have established that and you yourself agreed that that is not a required standard. can we stick to discussing if this articles breaks accepted WP guidelines for having an article and stop discussing irrelevant things on AfD. whether this topic is more notable or less notable is immaterial as long as it is above the threshold required. any other article related issues need to be discussed on talk page not here.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTLAW we rarely have cut and dried "rules" that apply to every situation. You asked me whether there are guidelines that say that the case has to have national security implications in order to be notable, and there are no such specific guidelines that I know of. We do have WP:EVENT, which says that events are likely to be notable "if they have a significant lasting effect", it is in this context that Plot Spoiler raised national security: "The plot also has longer-term ramifications for national security and homegrown terrorism", it is therefore relevant. Quasihuman | Talk 17:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- like I pointed out for criminal acts we have WP:N/CA which is more specific for notability in such cases than WP:EVENT. In any case no EVENT happened here so I do not see the relevance of WP:EVENT. A crime was alleged and arrests were made and the event was foiled. like plot spoiler has said in subsequent post that he does not believe anymore that this is relevant to AfD and I agree.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out that WP:N/CA is link to a subsection of WP:EVENT, and does not contradict the rest of that page, but rather gives additional guidelines which are relevant in the case of a criminal act or alleged criminal act. From WP:EVENT: "This guideline is intended to explicate the primary notability guideline with regards to current and past real events, as well as breaking news." this article is covered under breaking news. If Plot Spoiler is withdrawing his claim, it might be helpful if he crossed out the relevant sentence in his original post. Quasihuman | Talk 10:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- like I pointed out for criminal acts we have WP:N/CA which is more specific for notability in such cases than WP:EVENT. In any case no EVENT happened here so I do not see the relevance of WP:EVENT. A crime was alleged and arrests were made and the event was foiled. like plot spoiler has said in subsequent post that he does not believe anymore that this is relevant to AfD and I agree.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTLAW we rarely have cut and dried "rules" that apply to every situation. You asked me whether there are guidelines that say that the case has to have national security implications in order to be notable, and there are no such specific guidelines that I know of. We do have WP:EVENT, which says that events are likely to be notable "if they have a significant lasting effect", it is in this context that Plot Spoiler raised national security: "The plot also has longer-term ramifications for national security and homegrown terrorism", it is therefore relevant. Quasihuman | Talk 17:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes we have established that and you yourself agreed that that is not a required standard. can we stick to discussing if this articles breaks accepted WP guidelines for having an article and stop discussing irrelevant things on AfD. whether this topic is more notable or less notable is immaterial as long as it is above the threshold required. any other article related issues need to be discussed on talk page not here.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We didn't establish that, we established that there are no guidelines that say that the case has to have national security implications in order to be notable. If the incident did have national security implications, that might increase its notability, therefore it is important to establish whether that is true or not. Plot Spoiler rightly raised this as one reason for notability, I'm just trying to establish whether it is true or not. Quasihuman | Talk 16:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think as we already established this has no bearing on afd. Not worth looking back into. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't, but that was an argument used by Plot Spoiler as to why the article is notable, see above, it is only fair to bring that into question if it was raised by another editor. Plot Spoiler, can you substantiate that with a source? Did the feds change their minds with this new evidence? The sting operation apparently took place on 11 May, the article cited in my comment above is dated 14 May and does not mention this evidence. Quasihuman | Talk 12:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- and where in WP guidelines does it say that the case has to have "national security implications" in order to be considered notable enough for an article?--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Moving on from from that particular point, I would like to address Wikireader41's claim that this article would be notable even if the protagonists are acquitted. He offers a rationale for this - that it would document islamophobia. Thus far, I have found no sources which raise this point about this plot. The authorities say that this is not a religiously motivated plot (according to the Wall Street Journal article). Saying that this will be covered in reliable sources as islamophobia is WP:CRYSTAL. It is my opinion that this article is in WP:ANTICIPATION of the protagonists being found guilty. Quasihuman | Talk 13:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: Per WP:N/CA as a widely-reported criminal act. Though I do agree that "Alleged" would be a better title until the charges are confirmed. The word "plot" in that title is also problematic in that the men didn't seem to have any one specific plot or even set of plots, but were buying ammunition to make future plots possible; perhaps that sounds overly pedantic, but I expected to read in this article that these men had some sort of plan, and that doesn't appear to be the case. Khazar (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per WP:N/CA.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Edison.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:58, 25 May 2011 (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.