Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Plot to Behead a British Muslim Soldier


 * 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 to delete; possible merge. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:45Z 

2007 Plot to Behead a British Muslim Soldier

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Purely a news item, this is not encyclopedia worthy, merely newsworthy. Article belongs on Wikinews. For an extended reasoning which I do wish to repeat here, see the proposed guideline WP:NOTNEWS and it's talk page WT:NOTNEWS. This incident fails several of the points which would raise it from being merely an interesting news story to being part of the lasting historical record. (p.s. already listified on List of terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom.)  Zun aid  ©  ®  08:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions.   --  Zun  aid  ©  ®  08:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons stated above. --Action Jackson IV 09:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the well-reasoned nom. Take it to wikinews, please, but this is not encyclopedic. Moreschi Request a recording? 10:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but expand. The article as it stands is barely above stub level: six names, a paragraph, three references and one See also. But the subject in itself is encyclopedic: what is the background of the suspects, how was the plot foiled, how does this relate to the wider British Muslim community, what are the consequences of this in terms of measures and legislation, etcetera. A lot can be written about this subject, and it's up to us to do so. A  ecis Brievenbus 10:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. See our No original research policy.  It's up to historians, journalists, and others to do the research and write all of the things that you list.  As encyclopaedists, our task is to summarize and condense what they have written and published.  If you want to make a case for keeping this article, arguing that it's up to us to perform original research isn't the way to do it.  Cite sources to show that a lot has been written about it, by others, not that a lot can be written about it by us. Uncle G 13:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it's up to historians and journalists to research what I have listed. Historians will do so in a few years time, but journalists are already digging into the issue. That's what the references are for. This particular case has received widespread media coverage from all over the world, and the relevant information in those sources needs to be gathered to form an encyclopedic article. I agree that the article isn't as it should be atm, but that is no grounds for deletion. Digging into the issue ourselves would be original research, gathering what journalists have written about the issue is not. I merely said that a lot can be added to the article, I never said that the original research for it should be done by us. Because that's indeed not our task. What we can do is gather the original research of reliable sources. A  ecis Brievenbus 01:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is highly newsworthy, but in time will become historic. It is desirable that the article is shaped contemporously rather than afterwards.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia yes, but it is an encyclopedia with several advantages over traditional ones.  Among those advantages is the ability to document history as it happens.212.219.242.194 12:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for documenting history as it happens. That's for journalists, not encyclopaedists.  "wiki" means "fast", not "first".  If you want to write about "highly newsworthy" things, you are in the wrong project.  The project for editors who want to be journalists, and which decides what to include based upon its newsworthiness, is Wikinews.  This project is an encyclopaedia.  Encyclopaedists condense and summarize documentation that has already been written and published outside of Wikipedia.  If in time the events do become historic, then Wikipedia should have an article.  But you yourself imply that they have not yet become historic; and it seems somewhat premature, and skirting dangerously close to flouting our Biography of living persons policy, to have an article that does little more than simply list the names and ages of specific, identifiable, people who have yet to be actually convicted of the crimes that they are charged with. Uncle G 13:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - but virtually all that belongs in a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. Agreed that this might well be a valid topic if legislation is passed as a result of this. At the moment, this just does not meet WP:NOTNEWS - admittedly still only a proposed guideline - and will not do until someone makes a film or some legislation. To be honest, I'd be surprised if anyone does pass any new laws over this. It's just another averted terror plot. Lots of those these days. Moreschi Request a recording? 11:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What subjects are or are not appropriate for wikinews is irrelevant to this decision. There is nothing to say or infer that a subject covered on wikinews should not be covered on wikipedia. AFDs should be based only on compliance with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. AndrewRT(Talk) 14:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOTNEWS is a proposed guideline that does not have consensus. Therefore this guidlene is not relevant. AndrewRT(Talk) 14:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable current event. And as per AndrewRT, WP:NOTNEWS is only a proposed guideline. 23skidoo 14:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but expand (Disclaimer: I started this article) One of the many reasons to keep this article is that it marks a shift in terrorist tactics, from mass casualty bombings to the use of Iraq style beheadings on the streets of Britain (this will get put into the article when i have the right source). As to legislation, the first thing the police talked about was upping the max 28 day detention without charge to 90 days. Also the "police state for muslims" quote stirred up a hornets nest, especially as he was released under a judges order as he did not think they had enough evidence to continue holding him without charge. Also this article is in List of terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom (disclaimer: i put it there 24 hours ago) under list of foiled or failed plots in the UK.Hypnosadist 14:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a misnomer to say that WP:NOTNEWS is not relevant. Guidelines are not hard and fast rules and DO allow exceptions: an article may be kept despite failing the guidelines, and so too may an article be deleted without obviously failing any guideline. This is one of those cases of an article not failing any obvious WP:N guidelines, but still IMHO unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Please read WT:NOTNEWS and its cross-linked discussions and AfD debates. The entire proposed guideline was born out of an AfD case exactly like this, and many of the arguments presented there are "valid", if not "carved in stone" in the form of guideline or proposal.  Zun  aid  ©  ®  14:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note Islamist calls for soldiers' heads The Australian - writing that this isn't a one-off story, but a potential trend. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article complies with all the relevant threshold policies for inclusion - WP:N(independent 3rd party citings), WP:V (verifiable sources exist). Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia which means it can go into a lot more detail than usual encyclopedias. This is an important detail within the overall subject of Terrorism in the United Kingdom which you wouldn't want to include in the main article as it would make this too long. AndrewRT(Talk) 14:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Several points after reading the Proposed policy of no news. 1) This story has run for over a week (six days to the police state quote). 2)This AfD is obviously a proxy battle to push one view of this proposed policy. 3)This story has vastly more news coverage than the letterbomb attacks that happened a day before this event (yet thats on the main page). 4) this idea has been around for the same length of time as the news story (the raids and the creation of the policy page both happened on 31 jan 2007).Hypnosadist 15:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS Three BBC stories over a 2 day period are refeerences for the article. Several men were arrested, and then several of them were released without charges. Clearly news, not clearly encyclopedic. An encyclopedia is not an archive of everything that was in the news in some locality for a little while. Edison 16:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a few more references showing international coverage:
 * "Terror raids over 'beheading plot'", CNN, January 31, 2007
 * "Britain foils plot to torture Muslim soldier", By Rob Harris, February 1, 2007, Associated Press/Boston Globe
 * "Neuf terroristes présumés arrêtés en Grande-Bretagne" Le Monde, French "Newspaper of record"
 * This was covered all over the world, it's a major international story. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep notable current event, covered by major sources across the world, meeting Notability which is a guideline. WP:NOTNEWS is a highly debated proposal that explicitly contradicts WP:N, does not have consensus, and, frankly, it does seem like the nomination is overly strongly tied to the effort to make the proposal a guideline. We should be debating the specific article here, not the proposal. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to an appropriate, encyclopedically-important subject. WP:NOTNEWS aside, this is not the wiki-newspaper. That would be two blocks down and take a right at Wikinews. If it becomes clear that this event is of historic and lasting (and therefore encyclopedic) importance (hundred-year test), great, make its own article then, but for now, I'm sure Wikinews would be very glad for help on this newspaper, not encyclopedia, item. It's just too bad we can't transwiki stuff directly to them. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article obviously passess WP:Notability (see all the source above), reliable sources have assigned significance to it beyond a routine terror plot, the incident has received international coverage over the course of multiple days. Also, WP:NOTNEWS is not a guideline yet--please do not keep citing it!  Though it may not be your intent, it can be misleading.  Someone who isn't directly involved with the project may mistake it for established Wikipedia policy/guideline.  -- Black Falcon 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, especially due to the apparent WP:POINT violation. The article should get a proper NPOV name that meets simplicity guidelines in WP:NC, e.g. 2007 British beheading plot. --Dhartung | Talk 20:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The (alleged) plot was specifically to behead a British Muslim Soldier hence the name, and why I think it's appropriate AndrewRT(Talk) 20:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think it's entirely true that the point of this nomination was to push the adoption of WP:NOTNEWS and hence violates WP:POINT. This AFD doesn't disrupt wikipedia per WP:POINT. NOTNEWS is currenly being debated in order to find a consensus and the related AFD discussions (more are listed at WT:NOTNEWS) are all an important way to find that consensus. The conclusion of this debate will be an important guide to the debate on NOTNEWS but I don't think there's anything wrong with this. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. Jcuk 22:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete wikipedia is not wikinews. This is nothing more than the rewrite of a news story.  We do not need articles on every minor happening in the war on terror (and yes, everybody, this is minor). Resolute 23:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not WikiNews.  This is disturbing but hardly uncommon.  Rossami (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable incident with verifiable sources available. As per Dhartung, should be renamed. One of Wikipedia's great strengths is that it is more current that other encylopedias. Capitalistroadster 02:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Knowing the details of terrorist plots is of such obvious value, even years afterwa &mdash; oh, I forgot, we're not supposed to cite "usefulness" as a reason for keeping an article. Always remember we're here to cite Wikipedia rules like lawyers without regard to real-world uses of this Wikipedia tool we have. Let's only cite some Wikipedia bureaucratic rule we can find because after all, how important could it be for us to actually use our heads? Let's just blind ourselves to what we might find important in the world because it wouldn't have been put in a paper encyclopedia that couldn't be updated fast enough to deal with a subject like this. Just because we're electronic and instantly updatable here doesn't mean we shouldn't blindly follow what was used in an encyclopedia which had to limit its coverage of developing subjects as it cut down the trees, cut them into sawdust, create pulp, make paper from the pulp, buy the ink . . . . Noroton 03:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CIVIL, and bear in mind that wikinews can retain this information very easily. Resolute 14:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't confuse strong argument for incivility. Please reread the first paragraph of WP:CIVIL. In my comments above, no aspersions can even be inferred on anyone since (a) I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, (b) I wasn't even criticising anyone in general, but criticising arguments and attitudes. If you consider strong disagreement to be offensive in itself, please consider whether that's intolerant on your part. As to WikiNews &mdash; it isn't as easily found by readers as regular Wikipedia articles are. Important subjects, and this is one, deserve their own Wikipedia articles, whether or not they've been in the news. This incident will be of enduring value for years to come.Noroton 15:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you that the article should be kept, it is impossible to say that "this incident will be of enduring value for years to come." A  ecis Brievenbus 15:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You make an interesting point. But in fact it is possible to say: Even failed terrorist plots, when they involve new tactics, commonly have an effect on security policy: The shoe-bomb incident resulted in shoes being checked and often taken off at airports; The liquids incident resulted in containers with liquid being banned. Also, others may copy this tactic. Obviously, those other incidents involved public transportation and this is limited to Muslims in the military, and obviously nobody has a crystal ball, but it isn't a wild guess that this incident will have a strong effect on Muslims in Western military organizations. In fact, it's overwhelmingly probable that attitudes (of Muslim and non-Muslim soldiers) and policies (about protecting Muslim soldiers) will be affected. Soldiers with intimate knowledge of Muslim languages and culture are extremely important in Western armies today. I'd bet the rent money that this will be important five and 10 years from now, just as the U.S.S. Cole, Black Hawk Down incidents have been influential.Noroton 15:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC) (minor edit for clarity)
 * If this incident does lead to any such changes in the future, then yes, it would deserve an article here. However, it has not, and a guess about what may happen as a result is not of any encyclopedic value.  Even if one person thinks that it is "overwhelmingly probable" for x to occur, until x actually does occur, that argument is invalid.  Also, I cited WP:CIVIL for comments like "how important could it be for us to actually use our heads?"  Believe it or not, most people in this discussion are using their heads, and then supporting that thought with policy and guidelines.  You should not lose sight of this just becuase your opinion is not universally shared. Resolute 21:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If "how important could it be for us to actually use our heads?" is the most uncivil thing I said, then, after reviewing WP:CIVIL, let's just say we disagree on what Wikipedia's civility standards are. Even taken out of context, it is a criticism of poor argumentation, and in context it shows I'm advocating that editors prize common sense more as they apply rules. Speaking of common sense, to suggest that this terrorist plot might not affect policies and people in the future is simply to ignore how past terrorist plots in the West, when they've been innovative (or at least brought tactics to new countries), have almost invariably affected people and policies up to the present. This isn't one person's "guess". Noroton 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and Edison. Premature article - properly suitable for Wikinews but not here Bwithh Join Up! See the World! 07:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete since the story is fit for a newspaper, but is of very little historic interest. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is of so much historical interest, now and for the foreseeable future, that it verges on the practical. Especially if you're a Muslim member of a Western military force, but even if you're a citizen of any place a terrorist might strike. Or perhaps just someone concerned about and/or interested in the phenomenon of terrorism. Wikipedia should be helping people find information on a serious subject like this.Noroton 15:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely keep Further to my comments above: existing policies and guidelines have thresholds in place which articles have to reach in order to merit inclusion - specifically in WP:V, WP:N and WP:NOT. This article clearly passes all of these criteria. Therefore the only rationale for deleting becomes a debate between the difference between a newsworthy event and an encyclopedic topic. Bearing in mind the Summary Style recommends that sub-topics within a particular topic are split out to prevent articles becoming too long, you inevitably end up with articles on minor topics which would never expect to see on, say, Encyclopedia Brittanica. I accept that not all newsworthy events are encyclopedic topics, but when does the first become the second? The definition of encyclopedia - a comprehensive reference work - gives a clue in that people should have to want to refer to it. The event must have some historical relevance - perhaps a new law, a new political movement or something. It must be part of a greater trend, not an isolated instance. It should be part of a larger narrative. The article on a notable event - unlike a newspaper coverage of an event - should analyse the context and explain the impact and consequences of the event rather than just detail the event itself. This is, in fact, a good example of an event which is part of some much greater themes. When we start writing decent articles on Terrorism in the United Kingdom, Islamist Terrorism in the United Kingdom and Islam in the United Kingdom, events like this one will be key parts of these overall narratives. It's good to have articles with an indepth coverage of events like these - after all, Wikipedia is not paper - so that we can use our summary style and integrate them in. Isolated events with no wider consequence - like a highway crash perhaps - can be newsworthy but not encyclopedic, but this article is definitely both. AndrewRT(Talk) 01:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into 31 January 2007 Birmingham raid. KazakhPol 06:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment This AFD done with now? Looks like a keep to me.Hypnosadist 13:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. meets WP:N and WP:V. John Vandenberg 07:07, 17 February 2007 (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.