Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Islamic inspired bomb plot on Australian aeroplane


 * 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) 23:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Islamic inspired bomb plot on Australian aeroplane

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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 pure WP:COMMENTARY of an arrest of a small group, which went no further. This does not demonstrate wider notability of the incident or the subjects.


 * 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 individual it is limited and brief, if any at all. 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment The article probably does not meet the general notability guideline per nominator's comments. If kept, the article name should be improved, per my previous comments at the article's Talk page. I may have missed something, but I appear to be the only contributing editor who has been advised at User Talk about this AfD, which may be perceived as canvassing.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait. In other words, Nom did ping one editor, but only one editor. And the sole editor Nom pinged was an editor who had expressed doubts about keeping this article on article's talk page? Pretty dicey behavior for an experienced editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Having reviewed the nominator's other AfD requests to delete similar articles, there appears to be a political/ideological motivation beyond simply cleaning up unnecessary articles. I still don't want to 'vote' because of the original perception of canvassing, but I would be leaning towards Keep if pressed on the matter.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Note - Pinging contributors: . I pinged the other editors who contributed to this article. I am sure the nom simply made an honest mistake so hopefully this addresses any issues with canvassing. I did not ping the article creator because they are indefinitely blocked and cannot participate any time soon.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not a contributor. I just cleaned up some vandalism. Why did you ping me? Quinton Feldberg (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * if you do not want to participate, just carry on. No need to overreact. I just did not want this AfD to be marred by fears of canvassing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note That this is one in a series of articles in which Nom templates the page for outside interference at the moment of creation.  Highly irregular. User:Sport and politics, can you explain why you are doing this? E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what on earth is being talked about here. Outside interference what on earth is that all about. This feels very much like bad faith being assumed here. I would like an explanation of what is going on and why if there is an issue it is not being fully explained on my talk page. This is not the place, and this feels very much like bureaucracy being used to interfere with a deletion discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are you putting this template atop a series of brand new AfD?E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please move this discussion to my user talk page. Sport and politics (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nom, please cease adding canvassing templates to AfDs where canvassing is not occurring.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop flogging a dead horse, you are now just being disruptive. It has been discussed, on another forum and if you wish to continue with this discussion do so on my talk page and not here. Going from article to article, and arm waving the same thing is a violation of WP:POINT. Sport and politics (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Or, you could show good faith by removing the templates.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Attempted attack uncovered just weeks ago when police investigated overweight suitcase being checked onto a flight. Suspects are in police custody, and, frankly, deleting this so early in the investigation would delete useful information, precisely what WP:RAPID is meant to prevent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is more recent coverage, gNews form which coverage of the bombing attempt can be sourced.  According to the BBC, a suicide bomber was planning to board the place with IEDs concealed inside a meat grinder and a Barbie doll. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - No comment on notability yet but can you at least agree, assuming this article will be kept, that there needs to be a name change?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure. Lousy name.  Maybe change name to 2017 Barbie doll bomb plot. joke, that was a joke. But an inappropriate name is no reason to start an AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said it was, nor did the nom for that matter.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The name should be changed. Flight number or perps (who are named in the article - Khayat brothers).Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This also received coverage in foreign media as well, so it is not a local minor matter. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable counter-terrorism event. Passes WP:NEVENTS.  Greenbörg  (talk)  09:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:Notability (events) An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 5 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  04:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. In-depth world coverage through late August -  . Significant plot, cross-continent security coordination before capture of suspects.Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment more international coverage today 7 sep 2017 .Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 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.