Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Indonesian embassy bioterrorism hoax


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

2005 Indonesian embassy bioterrorism hoax

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

This was a flash-in-the-pan news event, which received a small amount of coverage in the Australian press in June 2005 and hasn't been mentioned since other than one report a year later:. Not notable per WP:EVENT. Anthrax hoaxes are so common that virtually none of them are individually notable. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.  — Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge, the event deserves mention on WP; though if we begin making a veritable list at Anthrax hoax, I think that would be just as good. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 22:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just turned the Anthrax hoaxes article from an unsourced list that was up for deletion into a sourced proper article. Please please please don't revert it into an indiscriminate list of every anthrax hoax - there are hundreds and hundreds of them. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - it may seem run of the mill not worth keeping a record from the perspective of particular wikipedia guidelines - however the issue as it was in the particular context - for either Australian or Indonesian relations - it is a valid item SatuSuro 00:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is notable to Australia-Indonesia relations, could it be merged there? Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: - not sure about this one. The article is missing mention of the context - from memory it was at the height of the Schapelle Corby trial and other strains in the Indo-Australian relationship. --Merbabu (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Fences - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't "keep per Fences", I'm nominating it for deletion and arguing that it is non-notable. I asked a question above about merging, not an argument. Try again, but using complete sentences to explain yourself this time. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, press coverage demonstrates notability. Everyking (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, press coverage alone doesn't demonstrate notability, see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. Just asserting that a minor amount of coverage in the local press shows notability is tiresome without some explanation of your position. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My position is that a substantial level of press coverage demonstrates notability in all cases. I don't feel there's anything else for me to explain. Everyking (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - just another minor anthrax hoax with brief local coverage; WP:NOTNEWS applies here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  04:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.