Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Sydney terrorism 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 keep. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Sydney terrorism plot

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

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 mainly WP:COMMENTARY of the trial and verdict. This does not demonstrate wider notability of the incident or the subject.

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 plot 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)[reply]

Nom, please don't add canvassing templates to AfDs where canvassing is not occurring.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced article about notable case that rocked Australian a decade ago and that meets WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historically important article on notable event + well referenced. Hughesdarren (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced, high profile event, sources in the article span 5 years. Coverage continues in current news (e.g. [1] [2]). Multiple books - [3] Was even a cursory BEFORE performed prior to this AFD?Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Checking the article we see, "The trial was one of Australia's longest and involved approximately 300 witnesses and 3,000 exhibits, including 18 hours of telephone intercepts and 30 days of surveillance tapes, which has overtaken the record previously held by..." Unscintillating (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above comments.Greenbörg (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 04:40, 7 September 2017 (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.