Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holsworthy Barracks terror 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holsworthy Barracks terror plot

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This had closed as merge, before the page was redirected here. Since that AfD isn't directly translatable to this article, I'm nominating this one for the sake of removing ambiguity and ensuring that it doesn't sidetrack the consensus of the community. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with above; this is same context with a different name - information is already sufficiently noted in Terrorism in Australia and in Holsworthy Barracks. Jwoodger (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. florrie 23:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I can't help noticing that the {{afd}} for 2009 Sydney suicide attack was not transcluded on the terrorism deletion sorting list. Geo Swan (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP It is a significant incident and the article will probably grow as th accused go to trial.Josh02138 (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the information necessary about the plot is in the article about the barracks. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This topic is a developing one, and is already considered to be perhaps one of the most significant terrorism plots in recent Australian history. There will be months, if not years of court cases and further investigations related to this incident. It would be imprudent to delete this article now, considering that the article will have to be recreated in the context of the weight of the incident's ongoing newsworthiness. Hunarian (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per User:Hunarian; and because article is well sourced; and because it has long been customary on wikipedia to give significant terrorist attacks and attack plots articles independent of the institution attacked. thus: 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, 20 July plot, 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, etc. The reason for this is that as the suspects go to trial, the details of the plot tend to overwhelm the page of the institution allegedly targeted. This is unfair to institutions such as Holsworthy Barracks.Historicist (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striking !vote by proven sockpuppeteer--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 18:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment, for comparisons see [Category:Failed terrorist attempts]Historicist (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well-sourced, significant terror plot, developing story.ShamWow (talk)
Delete - Covered elsewhere. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
note I and others have been adding material not covered elsewhere to this article since the AFD was posted, and will continue to add significant material about this developing legal case going forward.Historicist (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficiently well-referenced. Geo Swan (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at first I thought it was destined to redirect to Terrorism in Australia like the previous one, but the amount of broadsheet-cited notable information that has been added since then indicates that a stand-alone article is the only option. Andjam (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also 2005 Sydney terrorism plot, Preston Mosque and 8 Blacks prayer hall for new forks. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Forks? You are saying that two alleged criminal conspiracies, with two completely separate groups of people, some four years apart, are the same single subject. What subject would that be, then? Uncle G (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, forks. None of these "attacks" (neither of which actually happened) are notable in their own right. Both would be better placed in an overall article covering the subject of Islamic militancy in Australia. I trust that is clearer? (but thanks for the sarcasm anyway ...) Mattinbgn\^talk 23:14, 19 August 2009 (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.