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

[edit]
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 WP:Not news. We can't cover every terrorist wanna-be. Terrillja also claims BLP issues which is not my area of expertise. Marcus Qwertyus (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]
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]
  • Except that that policy is inapplicable, as discussed elsewhere on this page. We do have a notability policy. The coverage in the 2,000 articles (so far) clearly meets that.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 10 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]
  • The case has been filed (U.S. v. Alessa). I've opened conversation as to the re-title here. In terrorism cases, it is not the convention, as you will see there, to title the related wiki article by the U.S. v. xyz case name.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:22, 10 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]
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]

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]

  • I also voted delete, Gatoclass, but take issue with part of your reasoning. Nothing about Anwar al-Awlaki has been tested in a court of law either. But he’s sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Hardly anyone even knows the names of these two bone-cones. The article might as well have been titled The arrest of those two dudes from New Jersey… I can’t remember their damned names; had a "q" in one of them, I think. Greg L (talk) 14:29, 11 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]
  • Comment The key piece of evidence here that Wikipedia is being treated like a newspaper is the article’s title, which includes the word “arrest”. That’s the tipoff that something ain’t quite right. Is the article’s name going to be updated so it eventually reads like The arrest arraignment trial conviction (damn-it) of those two New Jersey assholes? Greg L (talk) 14:50, 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.
More