Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holsworthy Barracks terror plot (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holsworthy Barracks terror plot[edit]

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

These discussions are notorious for promoting ignorance in several policies, so I shall be as full as possible in laying out all of them. This is for an actual discussion about notability.

This incident was given an article following the report of a plot of a potential incident. WP:RAPID applies to state that this trial and verdict is not meeting of notability.

The subject also fails WP:EVENTCRIT which advises writers to bear in mind WP:RECENTISM and that an event, such as a crime, needs more than media coverage (even if it was widely reported) to be notable. The article is mainly WP:COMMENTARY of the trial and verdict. This does not demonstrate wider notability of the incident or the subject.

No such impact is found in the WP:ROUTINE news cycle this incident received, please refer to WP:NOTNEWS. Consider WP:GEOSCOPE: the influence of the plot it is limited, cursory, and brief. The subject fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH; passing mentions in media reports, especially about other incidents, do not contribute to further coverage. Sport and politics (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom, please don't add canvassing templates to AfDs where canvassing is not occurring.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Frankly puzzled by Nom's deletion rationale. This is a well sourced article about a 2009 plot, widely revisited since (gBooks search here: [1]) and back in the news most recently when one of the men convicted in this plot was involved in the 2017 Brighton siege.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unlike many of the articles about criminal or terror incidents and plots, this one actually has the long-term historical significance and post-analysis (not just WP:ROUTINE news coverage) to demonstrate notability. And this is coming from me: a person who actually reviews all the relevant policies on these types of incidents instead of mindlessly voting keep for any criminal act committed by a certain ethnic group (and the typical keep voters know who I am referring to). I agree there is an issue with writers blatantly ignoring guidelines -- and we must address the damage that is causing -- but this article is not contributing to that problem.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deletion rationale is invalid for an 8 year old event. Continuing news coverage to 2017. Multiple books. Even a cursory BEFORE (and frankly - sources cited in the article itself) show this is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per arguments above - especially agree with Icewhiz's comments. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above comments. Greenbörg (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and due to the fact that this is WP:POV and WP:Point and this user has consistently tried to push an agenda of eliminating coverage of terrorism. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and censure for wasting our time with this frivolous AfD. This notable plot received mainstream news coverage as recently as this year (due to the 2017 Brighton siege — an article that nom has also nominated for deletion). --pmj (talk) 11:48, 7 September 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.