Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arrest of Two New Jersey Men Bound for Somalia

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Although the article needs to have a more 'encylopedic' title (and I comment everyone to comment at [[1]]), the consensus here is to keep -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of Two New Jersey Men Bound for Somalia

Arrest of Two New Jersey Men Bound for Somalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per

talk) 17:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Have you done a wp:before check? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What exactly do you want him to look for? It happened on Saturday, so we've established that it's "news". But Wikipedia is not the news. Mandsford 19:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What wp:before would have him look for. Coverage in notable RSs. The fact that an event just happened is not reason to not cover it on Wikipedia (which is made clear -- not by the misleading title, but by the content, of the "notthenews" guidance). Here we have all manner of national and international coverage not only across the U.S. but also in Aljazeera, France, India, China, Australia, the UK, the Dominican Republic, and Canada -- just to mention some coverage reflected in the article. Those 2,000 articles are the sort of indicia of notability that we look for in determining whether a subject is notable. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This story has been covered by most of the main news outlets and in this day and age each and every terror related incident is significant.--Supertouch (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -
    WP:NOTNEWS. There has been a tendency to make "articles" on things that are news stories when they are related to "terrorism". This "event" may be appropriate within another article, but it does not merit its own. Any number of news stories can have a thousand news sources, and to somebody who looks at the number of references to make a determination on notability that will usually be enough. But Wikipedia is not a collection of news stories, and articles should not be either. Transwiki to wikinews would be appropriate, but there is nothing here besides a news story. nableezy - 20:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. --Nableezy 20:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh. Does this mean we are going to have the usual cast of characters who voted against the Nidal Malik Hasan article, the Jihobbyist article, and other Islamist-related article also try to wipe this one from existence?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? nableezy - 04:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:NOTNEWS. I don't think we have an in-this-day-and-age policy for notability on anything. Mandsford 20:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Provisionally keep it for two weeks, after which time the notability should be reassessed, as speedy decliner. If the coverage continues, keep the article. If it doesn't, merge the content to some list of alleged terrorist activities, arrests, or whatnot. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A summary of the incident was added to Anwar al-Awlaki before this article was created...--Supertouch (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate or userfy until the Federal case is filed then rename "US Vs. whatever." If the case already exists, rename. This will generate the sort of coverage that inevitably leads to retention at wikipedia. But the childish name needs fixing. Crystal ball, but this case should throw up some interesting arguments having to do with the fed's action here. Lots of americans and US residents have gone off to fight in foreign civil wars.
    talk) 23:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
— Regent of the Seatopians (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
Yes, I only joined Wikipedia last week. What an obnoxious way to belittle my opinion! Thanks for making a newcomer feel at home, Epeefleche! Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. I assure you that the template -- which is a standard template used in Wikipedia to alert closing sysops when !voters at AfDs have very few previous edits -- is not meant to belittle editors. I commend you, at the same time, on being such a quick study.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not an SPA. The use of the notice is inappropriate, as this editor has edits going back a week before this AfD, to wholly unrelated topics, including other AfDs. A new editor, yes, but out of around fifty edits so far, in fact their comment here was the only one made on this topic, or on anything even vaguely related to it. N-HH talk/edits 10:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was the 26th page (or so) he had ever edited. The use of the template is therefore appropriate. It simply flags the issue to the sysop, who can use it as he/she sees fit in weighing the editor's !vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the editor is clearly not an SPA - they have made one substantive edit on this page, and fifty on wholly unrelated topics before that - so the use of the template is entirely inappropriate as well as being misleading and a personal attack on a new-ish editor. Perhaps the closing admin will indeed draw conclusions from its use. As noted on your talk page before you deleted my comment, the notice is intended for editors who appear to have signed up solely to edit on an AfD and related pages, where the suspicion is that they were drawn here by an outside campaign. N-HH talk/edits 12:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Probably the article will need to be retitled, but I think this is a typical Wikipedian hiding the collective head in the sand over what will be one the rather large number of notable potential terrorism-related incidents. Great public interest makes for notability DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I've opened up re-title suggestions for consideration here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely notable. Well sourced. 62.90.15.98 (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:NOTNEWS. The tip-off that this isn’t all that notable is the title of the article, which doesn’t mention the guys’ names (not earthshaking enough to remember them) and the title has lifted right off the AP wire feed. Greg L (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
As DGG says, the title will probably need to be changed (see suggestions here). I would say that issue is separate, however, from the notability of the content. Their individual names redirect to the article, so anyone searching for them can find the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The notability of the arrest of these gentlemen is reflected in the broad (approaching 2,000 4,000 articles as of this moment) national and international coverage of them, their plans, and their arrest. This reflects what we can expect will be the enduring notability of these people/events, and for that reason renders wp:notthenews inapplicable by its very own terms. This is by no means what wp:notthenews warns us against, to wit: "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."--Epeefleche (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and re-name per DGG and Epeefleche. While we are not the New York Post, major incidents sometimes get their own articles. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Acts of terrorism or attempted acts of terrorism are not run of the mill news stories, for which [[[wp:notnews]] applies. They are events with long-term notability, quite deserving of a stand-alone article. Don't know the background of any of the delete !voters here, but this may be a case of reverse
    WP:BIAS, where editors come from cultures that acts of terrorism are not noteworthy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Agree with DGG and Epeefleche. Rename it, and its fine. There is plenty of coverage about Mohamed Mahmood Alessa on his own, mentioning the warning signs at school MSNBC. News coverage isn't just about the event, but the people involved, the places that the person was molded into a terrorists, and the failure to stop this from happening. Google news search doesn't show as many results as the regular Google search does, even though regular Google search shows results from news sites. Dream Focus 05:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure the arrest of two men, even if it generates a brief flurry of news reports, and may indeed yet have some ongoing coverage as any trial progresses gets beyond WP:NOTNEWS. If it transpires that this was part of a major conspiracy, or that a major attack was prevented or whatever, perhaps. N-HH talk/edits 10:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

temporary keep recognizing that wikipedia is not news we may want to merge this into a broader article about terrorist scares and so on... but as of yet it is possible that this incident will have lasting impact... keep the information around until we know if this is a sudden burst in news coverage or something of lasting interest... Arskwad (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. We routinely cover people who have yet to be convicted. Did you also vote to delete the Bernie Madoff page? What about the 9/11 hijackers -- doesn't look like they will ever get a trial. For a sysop, that's some fairly novel ignore-all-rules !voting, Gato.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if they're notable enough, perhaps. Per Greg L, I think there's a difference when someone is only known for an arrest. There isn't even a crime here yet - just an allegation that some sort of crime may have been planned. Gatoclass (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG.
    Breein1007 (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It's a fair point about the title. Discussion as to what name might be a better one is taking place here. Thoughts are welcome there. I think there is a general consensus that the article would benefit from a new title. Would suggest we treat that as an issue separate from the notability of the article, however (where, as here, we have over 3,000 gnews hits, and coverage from major RSs across the US and in France, England, Australia, the Middle East, China, the Carribbean, etc., etc.)--Epeefleche (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arrest_of_Two_New_Jersey_Men_Bound_for_Somalia&oldid=1137577886"