Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 New Year's attack plots

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 New Year's attack plots[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. A collection of terrorism arrests and alleged offences. No actual attack or incident. WP:NOTNEWS. AusLondonder (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Invalid reason for nomination to AFD. Plots of many kinds have articles, failed terrorist plots have many articles. Nom appears unaware that is a plot gains sufficient attention, it can be notable. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~WP:SYNTHESIS of various news reports and~~ fails WP:NEVENT's lasting impact and continued coverage criteria. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while at least some have been covered together as related incidents (e.g. CNN), it doesn't seem to meet WP:NEVENT by itself; the content would probably be better off as small addendums on ISIL-related pages rather than as its own standalone page. ansh 666 07:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to an article which includes all (unsuccessful) plots. ansh 666 21:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. It is simply another of the large number of articles on foiled terrorist plans. These four foiled plans could, of course, each be given an independent article. Sourcing for that exists. It merely seemed efficient to group them this way. This is not WP:SYNTHESIS because as these attacks were being reported, the others were mentioned: NBC; The Independent; Sydney Morning Herald. I could fill this page with major news media covering these attack plots as a group. The Atlantic The question (for editors who do a proper search for sourcing), is whether to keep this as one article or as four.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Delete – this summary style of putting four practically unrelated attack plots together on the basis of their date isn't appropriate. If these four incidents shared a direct common thread (such as a single mastermind trying to make co-ordinated attacks), then I'd try to make a WP:GNG judgement; but since they don't, I'm simply going to say that the style is unencyclopedic and an article of this title will not be appropriate. Aspirex (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, that they were all ISIS-related. Please do not make misleading and untrue statements like "practically unrelated" at AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree entirely. "ISIS-inspired" is a broad category which merely describes the ideology of the individuals involved. As per my example, unless there was a direct link such as common plotters attempting to make a series of co-ordinated attacks, then I maintain that the events are in all practical aspects (using practical by its precise definition "based on practice or action rather than theory or hypothesis" rather than practically's informal definition "almost completely") unrelated. Aspirex (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies for having started an article and not gotten back to expand it, I just did a few small improvements and will be back to do more. Notability is gauged, of course, by available sources, sources are available, and, as I often suggest and often do with article sI find at AFD, when an article's notability is clear and sources are available, it is a better use of editor time ot improve the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. per E.M Gregory reasoning as well. This article is notable, good sourcing etc. Improvements has been made as well since nomination. all ISIS related as previous statements.BabbaQ (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into article that lists planned ISIS attacks foiled, today one such incident occurred [1]. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good point. As far as I can see, there isn't an article which lists attacks and/or planned/foiled plots by ISIL; maybe there should be. ansh666 00:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd support that in principle. There's no way all of these individual non-attacks should have their own pages, but a chronological list of foiled attacks would serve a similar function to an article like List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel,_2016 and would be an effective means of hosting the content. Aspirex (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I support creation of such an article, ~~merging~~ linking this material to it.(article creator)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC) see belowE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I renamed article per discussion above to List of unsuccessful plots by ISIL, AusLondonder (talk · contribs), nominator, reverted. not sure how to move forward. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pages in deletion discussions generally shouldn't be moved, especially so drastically. AusLondonder (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We close the discussion, then move the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor. I think we have reached a consensus and can close this page as merge/ move to List of unsuccessful plots by ISIL, a much-needed page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus yet. Far from it actually.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE there is an open move request at talk:2015 New Year's attack plots -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can not have a AfD discussion ongoing and a move request at the talk page at the same time. Why does people never learn.BabbaQ (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge: After users have worked hard to add more information and references to this article, please tell me why on earth this doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines? I don't see any reason to delete. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Support expressed by User:Aspirex, (perhaps Nate would also agree) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2016 Paris police station attack (2nd nomination) to rename that article into this one while merging both pages in to a new article with Spirit Ethanol's proposed title List of unsuccessful plots by ISIL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment edited to remove strange formatting issue ansh 666 21:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the merging proposal is not appropiate, as in this case possible attack plots on New Year's Eve are the subject of the article, in the case of the Paris police station incident a failed attack, that received widespread media attention in connection with the migrant crisis and the discussion about a possible terrorist influx along with the migrants.--Gerry1214 (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am persuaded by the arguments made by User:Gerry1214, User:Philmonte101 and by User:BabbaQ that the article should not be merged into List of unsuccessful plots inspired or directed by ISIL but should, rather be linked from that list and kept (iVote) above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, (edit: or merge) clear WP:SYNTH this is a collection of tangentially-related news stories grouped together via synthesis, with no coverage making any connection between them at all. Additionally, it fails WP:NEVENT; the coverage that does exist has no depth and no duration. Bunching a list of several barely-notable news reports together to try and produce an article that will stick falls afoul of WP:NOTNEWS as well. --Aquillion (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aquillion I challenge you; I do not see at all any reason that this topic would not be notable. The events were covered in several news articles even after the events happened. This is why I suggested to merge into List of unsuccessful plots by ISIL; in order to keep overly critical editors like yourself from blaming it on WP:SYNTHESIS. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aquillion References: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. By reading down that list, you can go ahead and assume that this article is notable; or at least its content is. I am highly in support of a merge! Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't actually be opposed to a merge, since I feel that the standard for a sentence or two mentioning something on that article is lower than the standard for giving it its own article. They're synthesis here because putting them together like this carries the implication that there was a coordinated wave of New Years' attack plots by ISIS in 2015 in particular, which isn't really supported by any of the sources; but just throwing them onto a page about failed ISIS plots doesn't have that problem (although they'd need to be examined individually to make sure they qualify as 'genuine' ISIS plots and not copycats or something, but that can be handled on that page.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2016 (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.