Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Norway terror threat (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) 00:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

2014 Norway terror threat
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was previously deleted, and is now having had years pass, an even more suitable candidate for deletion under WP:routine, WP:NOTNEWS. In addition I would like to request that page creation for this title be blocked. Sport and politics (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep At the previous AfD, I !voted to delete, stating, "Nothing in Google books.   Most of the attention is in regards to an unnamed future event that may or may not happen, and at Wikipedia, we don't need to speculate about the future, we can wait for it." I also endorsed the subsequent DRV.  Well, it now has coverage in Google books.  Also, we have waited, and now we know that it is part of the history of European terrorism.  The previous AfD nom stipulated that it already passed WP:GNG.  I don't see that WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies, as this is no longer breaking news, and books are not newspapers.  Nor is there anything related to routine news in the arming of Norwegian police.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per User:Unscintillating. Significant incident, well-sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sport and politics I wish you discussed some of these recent articles with someone. Some of your nominations are spot on but inevitably the rapid AfD spree will be exploited by automatic keep voters. This subject has the historical analysis that many articles of this nature lack. It meets WP:LASTING and is being more thoroughly documented in books, not just media.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to this article I do not see the issue here it was deleted once, and then re-created through improper channels, I do not see why avoiding a deletion review, should entitle an article to stay. There is little lasting notability of this and it was deleted once, and should be deleted again. Sport and politics (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked at the creation of the article, and the accusatory language "re-created through improper channels" lacks evidence. Articles created on Wikipedia do not need permission of central authorities.  The deletion review endorsed the deletion of the article.  The article at the time (based on my comments at the DRV) was concerned about the unfolding possibility of an act of terrorism (which violates WP:NOTNEWSPAPER), but with the perspective of history, and the record now available in books,  the article can focus on the context that led to the unusual arming of Norwegian police.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Led to arming Norway's police with guns for 1.5 years. Received SIGCOV through 2016 at least (just added Wapo and FP to the article).Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above comments.  Greenbörg  (talk)  09:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 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  04:42, 7 September 2017 (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.