This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 14:15, 29 June 2007 (→Title: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:15, 29 June 2007 by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) (→Title: comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 June 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This is a news article
Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper this article either needs to be merged with a broader encyclopedic topic ("Terrorist plots in London" or similar), or the efforts focused on this moved to Wikinews. --Monotonehell 10:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- This article documents a terrorist incident. If this page needs to be merge or deleted so does 2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot, 7 July 2005 London bombings and September 11, 2001 attacks. --Philip Stevens 10:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- People are jumping the gun, give the article a few days for more facts to be released. I agree with Philip. --Yini3 10:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- COBRA was called in which means it is significant. Also as mentioned before there are many precedents on Wiki. It defiantly should not be merged until the full details become available but even after that I think it should stay. Tamatisk 12:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree this article does not need to be merged with anything else. Misplaced Pages can be a good source of information if news reporting is a big 'sensationalised' SimonD 12:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think you need to understand that wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopaedia, not a place for you to get information because most news reports are too sensationalised. The place for that would be wikinews Nil Einne 12:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I concur with all of the above responses. In any case, the idea that there should be a centralised Terrorist plots in London seems predicated on the asusmption that they are so numerous and/or "similar" that they can be dealt with collectively. The reality is that they are thankfully rare events and most/all of the most recent are sufficiently different from each other than they merit separate treatment. Nick Cooper 12:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually on the contrary the primary reason why there should be a centralised article is because they're rare enough that they can be covered in sufficient detail in one article. Nil Einne 12:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's nonsense, not least because combining just 7 July 2005 London bombings and 21 July 2005 London bombings would result in an unmanagably large page, quite apart from the fact that both already have other spin-off pages. In addition, centralising - for example - totally unconnected subjects like David Copeland, 7 July 2005 London bombings, Wood Green ricin plot and this page makes no logical sense. We already have List of terrorist incidents in London as an adequate index, and that has sufficed until now. Nick Cooper 13:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with merging it and it also needs to be rewritten. Right now it reads like a porrly written news aticle with repeating facts.--Skeev 12:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me there are two issues here. Firstly, should this article have been started in the first place? IMHO, no, it not yet clear that an article is merited. However I don't think there is any point in merging it now that it has been started. As often happens, the problem appears to be that people don't quite understand how things are supposed to work. The idea is not to start an article and wait for more details to be available. Instead, properly sourced details should be added to the existing article and the article split if & when sufficient details emerge that it's clear a seperate article is needed Nil Einne 12:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, this is news, but regardless of the eventual outcome, it will also, sadly, become part of modern British history, along with 7/7 and similar events. It is notable event, and should be retained - although in a more finished form, once things become more clear. Regards, Lynbarn 12:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- No way... Let it stay like this for a week or two, after the mess clears up, and the we'll see what to do. The article is changing to rapidly (multiple edit conflicts for me in about 7 minutes). --Evilclown93(talk) 12:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep, there are many precedents on Misplaced Pages. Mglovesfun 13:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Car Colour
Is the car metallic green, as cited on sky news or silver (as cited by the BBC)? It looks metallic green to me. --Yini3 12:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is definitely light green metallic, rather than silver - 've modified the article to suit. Regards, Lynbarn 13:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Title
The title seems a bit odd, like someone half-remembered the 1888 Haymarket bombing in Chicago. Also, the title seems to imply that the bomb was meant to be exploded at Haymarket, which doesn't actually seem clear. Any better suggestions?--Pharos 13:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
|...and strictly speaking, we don't know yet if it WAS a plot - although I'm not sure what else it might have been. The name will do for now, until more facts filter out, but how about The Haymarket car bomb incident? Regards, Lynbarn 13:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- What about 2007 London car bomb? --Evilclown93(talk) 13:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I moved it to 2007 Haymarket car bomb before I saw this discussion. I didn't realise there was a Haymarket in the USA. "London" feels a bit too vague to me, but might work. Carcharoth 14:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)