Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Balkans terrorism 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. The consensus is that this is notable and needs expansion but not deletion. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 03:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Balkans terrorism plot[edit]

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

I feel like this article fails WP:NOTE as the event never was not very significant. Also, the article only contains two linked sources, neither of which detail any actual action taken by the perpetrators beyond just 'thinking of doing something.' Kamalthebest (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTNEWS and fails the "lasting effect" criterion of WP:NEVENT. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the article itself looks like a poor stub to me (I'll tag it), this was an ultra-high-profile terrorism plot that received coverage in most major international newspapers, and in particular plenty in Israel, Albania, and Kosovo. BTW, according to reliable news reports, a total of 26 (not 18) people were eventually arrested. What makes it even more notable per WP:EVENT is the lingering effect on these countries. It included a Jerusalem stadium public screening of the Albania-Israel match, since the travel of Israeli fans to Albania was prohibited after this terrorism plot was discovered. -- IsaacSt (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, are these screenings still being done? Are Israelis still banned from entering Albania? What is even more important, is there WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE after this news spike? Giving sources to back up these claims is highly recommended. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd like some sources for these claims too please. Kamalthebest (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, looks like some clarification is needed: It was Israel's Counter-Terrorism Bureau that issued the travel warning, not Albania. Also, as you may understand, this was a world cup qualifier match, and it could take years until Israel happens to play in Albania again, so the question about "screenings still being done" is an irrelevant one. The soccer match was just an example, anyway.

For an event to be considered notable, it has to meet at least one of the points mentioned in WP:EVENT. This particular terror plot meets not one, but all of them. Repercussions ranged from weeks later (mentioned in my previous post) to as late as this month [1] (WP:EFFECT / WP:PERSISTENCE). It affected Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia and Israel, and now also Iraq (WP:GEOSCOPE). It received in-depth coverage on countless reliable sources all over the world (WP:INDEPTH / WP:DIVERSE): try the simple Google search [2], and you can pick from literally hundreds of reliable sources, even though this Google search only returns English sources (English isn't the language of any of the involved countries) and only the Albanian incident (remember that the attack was planned on Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia simultaneously). Need I say more? -- IsaacSt (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So if it could take years until Israel plays again, I take that as a one-off event, i.e. it fails the lasting effects criterion. What may or may not happen in the future falls under WP:CRYSTAL. I took a look at your second link and GNews and I cannot find any reliable coverage to satisfy WP:PERSISTENCE, especially the line about "multiple sources". Nothing in-depth from 2017. No, the Daily Star (link#1) does not count, it is a highly unreliable tabloid, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 90#Daily Star. If you have got something better than that, present them here and don't leave it up to us to search for something we cannot find, because the WP:ONUS is on the inclusionists. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're attacking only one out of the entire list of proofs of notability, and it was given as an example only. I've provided plenty of refs above, though I had not been involved in the creation or editing of this article in any way, so I'm not sure why you think it is my duty to search for refs more than it's yours (WP:BEFORE). I respectfully suggest we agree that we disagree and we leave it to those that haven't spoken up yet. Please don't reply to this thread, and I’m not going to do that either. Let's save everyone else a WP:REPEAT. -- IsaacSt (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and expand) Main problem seems to be that the article is too short as of now, but the subject material should be more than enough for an article if the article is just improved a little. User2534 (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and expand) - this article needs expansion and improvements. not deletion. AfD is not a clean-up service.BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Notable plot; impressive impact section already in article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN by User:IsaacSt makes this unquestionably notable; also makes clear that Nom and Hypergaruda did not follow WP:BEFORE or look for sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2017 (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.