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 delete.  Sandstein  05:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Berlin terrorist plot[edit]

2017 Berlin terrorist plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Another prime example of why Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. A day after this article was created, sources have reported that no evidence of a terror plot have been found. [1][2] Basically, this is an article about a non-existent plot. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. How very post-modern to essentially have an article about nothing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOTE and WP:EVENT. Calling a planned suicide bombing in one of Europe's largest metropolis "nothing" is just sad. It got a very high news coverage in national and international media for a long period. There are a lot of similar articles on Wikipedia: Russian Embassy in Berlin attack plot, 2016 Balkans terrorism plot, 2015 New Year's attack plots, 2016 Düsseldorf terrorism plot, 2016 Chemnitz terrorism plot, 2016 Ludwigshafen bombing plot, 2016 Sweden terrorism plot. So the dude who wants to delete the article should have some arguments, why this bomb plot is less notable than the rest.--Rævhuld (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rævhuld I am almost absolutely certain you ignored my rationale completely. Please read the sources I provided. They report that the suspect was released and the texts were misunderstood. There is no plot.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Since 'Police officials claimed that "[e]vidence of the planning of a concrete act has not yet been identified during the police investigation"', can I paraphrase: evidence of anything actually happpening to warrant an article in Wikipedia has not yet been identified by me. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)#Terrorist plots. Sources clearly state that security authorities had multiple reasons to suspect intention to commit a suicide attack. And these are WP:RS like DW adnd Die Zeit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• E.M.Gregory the only "reason" reported for his arrest was a mistranslated message to his mother. Also, please explain this to me, why would we redirect an incident confirmed to not be a terrorist plot to a list of terrorist plots? For an arrest where the authorizies even admitted they had no concrete evidence, it seems we would be implying there is some truth to this debunked claim.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• DW: "Authorities were put on the trail of the suspect by information from other German states, Schröter revealed." E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Information" is such a broad, ambiguous statement; whose to say it was not the message, literally the only "evidence" available from sources? E.M.Gregory are you going to respond to the remainder of my statement? About why a debunked claim needs to be redirected to a list of terrorist plots? This 17 year-old did absolutely nothing terrorist-related yet you want this incident redirected to a list of verified plots and threats.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I read and cited DW, can you point me to the source that supports your assertion?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the search I ran [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly E.M.Gregory. I would be happy to link my sources again (see my deletion rationale at the top for the first time).

• BBC: "'No concrete evidence was found that he was planning a crime that endangered the state,' Reuters quoted prosecutors as saying".

"There was also no evidence that he was linked to any foreign militant organisation, the news agency said".

• The Locale: "Public prosecutors said on Wednesday that they did not find enough evidence to substantiate suspicions that the teen had been plotting the alleged attack in Berlin. He was therefore released" TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Basically, an unaffiliated person did nothing to no-one. These sort of police investigations happen all the time and are not encyclopedia, because they are not notable. This matter should perhaps never have been made public, other than the police claiming how vigilant they are. WWGB (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per no actual plot. Might actually be reason for WP:SPEEDY delete if you feel like it fits WP:A3. Kamalthebest (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't quite say the article has no content, so much as the subject does, but I can see where you're going with that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BigHaz: Ok, my bad, I misinterpreted that. Thanks for correcting me. Kamalthebest (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BigHaz. Unless this is a particularly famous non-event (I think it isn't), we don't seem to need a news report about it. —Kusma (t·c) 20:00, 12 June 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.