Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ringsted 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 no consensus. No consensus for a specific outcome has transpired herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ringsted terror plot[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia per WP:NOTNEWS. Hitro talk 03:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:RAPID --Shrike (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been nominated after 27 days of the creation. 4 weeks are literally more than "few days". WP:RAPID does not apply here. No reason for lasting notability can be found. Only project that can be considered for retainer is Wikinews. Hitro talk 08:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source from two days ago that tells about the consequences of the incident [1] --Shrike (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In addition meet WP:DIVERSE as multiple sources around the world that discuss the incident. --Shrike (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, every arrest is not notable. This "terror plot" resulted in exactly 0 deaths and 0 injured. (And the "source from two days ago" isn't really related to this case: ASMLA have stated that they were behind this terrorst attack, so obviously any ASMLA meeting will meet with very strong police presence,) Huldra (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very easy keep actually - though the article is a mess, and should probably be rename to Iranian assassination plot of ASMLA leadership in Denmark (or something shorter). This a foiled Iranian spying/covert-op that caused an international incident (Denmark recalled its ambassador, called for more sanctions - Guardian). Coverage is continuing through the end of November - WSJ, Asharq Al-Awsat. Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep per INDEPTH, reported coverage by major international news outlets, including the BBC: [2] & New York Times. Terrible article, disheveled, disorganized article as it snow stands, however, sources exist from which a good article can be written.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep per INDEPTH, and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,Per Huldra, It is be considered that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.Also GNG doesn't support the subject, if it did support the subject, it wouldnot be a reason.The article which is based on just 2 RS, is better to delete or move to other relevant articles.Saff V. (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments like Saff's are not helpful. It is obvious that Saff never even glanced at the page, he could not have,asserted that there are "just 2 RS" if he had.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Governments, the press and the world in general tend to regard the act of a government sending an assassination squad to operate clandestinely and MURDER several people in a foreign country as a pretty big deal. Even when, as here, the assassins sent by Iran are foiled before they carry out their mission.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your last comments seems to be original research and we shouldn't make a decision based on it.In addition I reviewed article and find afew independent valied sources that don't support the notability.As Wikipedia:Notability (events) nominated,It is recommended that editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable.Saff V. (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SIGCOV If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.. Since the topic has received in-depth coverage, the guideline is quite clear, editors should presume the topic is notable at this stage. NOTNEWS applies to . For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This is not routine reporting on division three football. Europol is very likely to cover the plot in its annual TE SAT report on terrorism in Europe. AadaamS (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Terror plot in Europe covered in major press; enough for a keep. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:RAPID & WP:NOTNEWS. No apparent lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — A few voters on the side of keep argue there is in-depth coverage; however, these news stories are typical of the news cycle. Another editor argues simply rapid, even though that is a double-edged sword and past its expiration in this case. A few even admit the article is in a poor state which is a huge deal for BLPs. The simple facts of the matter are that we cannot claim there is sustained coverage with the expected news reports as our “evidence” or sufficient coverage to satisfy our notability guidelines on events, all while somehow somehow negating our core policy of NOTNEWS. A lasting impact cannot possibly be seen without a crystal ball so notability has not been established on several counts—and cannot be until we move beyond the news cycle crimes are afforded.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per WP:SIGCOV the incident has received coverage in international media. AadaamS (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the incident being commented by the prime minister of Denmark, it has reached the highest political levels in a country. When an ambassador has been recalled, it has also had international repercussions. AadaamS (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's don't lower the threshold. Enough time is passed and given the poor coverage of the event after the incident, I think we can safely remove this item per WP:NOTNEWS. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree, an incident with international ramifications, reported internationally - The Independent's article [3] (already included as a source) gives an idea of the ongoing diplomatic considerations. If it is kept, though, I would also suggest renaming the article to something like Alleged Iranian assassination plot of ASMLA leadership in Denmark, as suggested above. If it is not thought to warrant an individual article, then it should be merged into an article like Alleged Iranian terror and assassination plots in Europe, as that Independent article ties it to several other planned attacks. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have received a message on my Talk page from TheGracefulSlick, urging me to review WP:NOTNEWS and change my vote. I do not appreciate this - it appears to be an attempt to keep the lobbying out of sight. I do not believe that WP:NOTNEWS applies: this incident and its repercussions are not routine. Also, I suggested in my vote that an alternative would be to merge this incident into an article with larger scope. I would expect any closer to review all keep, delete or other arguments and suggestions, and make an objective decision. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this was a significant Iranian plot.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for WP:LASTING - this quite clearly has some rather serious diplomatic implications - Europe refrains from harsh response against Iran over terror plots for fear of emboldening Trump, Independent, 21 November, EU open to Iran sanctions after foiled France, Denmark plots: diplomats, Reuters, 19 November 2018. Continuing - EU ministers poised to impose sanctions over Ukraine poll, FT, 7 December - "Diplomats say the EU ministers are also likely to discuss other limited possible sanctions on Iran over an alleged foiled assassination plot in Denmark in September aimed at opponents of the regime in Tehran. The proposed sanctions against people allegedly involved in the plot come amid a bigger discussion on whether to increase EU pressure on Iran over its missile programme and its role in conflicts elsewhere in the Middle East.. Countries getting caught in state sanctioned assassination attempts in other countries are generally notable events with last diplomatic repercussions (as we see here).Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2018 (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.