Talk:2010 Portland car bomb plot/Archive 1

Please do not delete

The subject is notable. I plan to expand the article later today. Sclt1127 (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's really nothing notable about this person or the event. Bad people are caught in FBI stings all the time, many of them in the process of trying to harm others. None of them are notable for that act. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is EXCEPTIONALY notable as one of the largest would-be terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11. This was NOT a case of the FBI arresting a would-be bank robber. The bomb was TWICE the size (6x55 gallon drums) as the one used by Timothy McVeigh to blow up the Murrow Federal Building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.79.166 (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have read the complaint, the so-called 6-drums bomb was built by the FBI bomb squad. This guy can't blow up stuff even if he wanted to.F (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a subject people would want to look up. Even if the charges are not sustained, the topic is clearly newsworthy and the person is now of public interest. I fail to see the justification for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.25 (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What bomb? There was no bomb. There was no threat. Nothing happened. The only thing notable about this incident is that it is yet another example of the media blowing something way out of proportion because it generates sexy headlines. Please read more than the headlines. Nothing remarkable happened. There is no story. The whole thing will be completely forgotten in a couple of news cycles. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guy thought it was a real bomb, chose the target on his own, and planned the bombing on his own. The only reason why there was no bomb and no threat was because the FBI intervened early. This story is no less notable than John Hinkley, Jr. or anyone else who plotted an infamous crime and failed at it in some way. A crime does not need to be successful in order to be notable. — A lizard (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Comparable with a plot to assasinate the President? Get real. _wjemather ^bigissue 12:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. He wanted to kill more than 10,000 people and would have done so if given the opportunity. This is much more serious than what Hinkley did. Thank you for agreeing with me and for supporting the continued existence of this article. A lizard (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we still discussing this in December? Really? Excuse my frustration, but it appears that some people simply cannot accept community consensus. I !voted to keep the original name, but its not about me, its about the Wikipedia community. I don't like the notability policy, but I am 110% behind consensus. I AM satisfied with the renaming. Not my first choice, but we need to act collectively as a community. You'll have to excuse me now. I need to go delete the Nebraska page. I mean come on, absolutely NO historical or cultural relevance there! And since that won't take long, I will then embark on combining the wine, Pekingese and Mars pages. After all, they are all related! I am obviously joking at the end, but come on folks, even though it wasn't how I voted, we have to honor consensus. If we can't agree on whats included here then Wikipedia means nothing. I happen to believe it means a great deal! AlaskaMike (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Agree completely. This failure to honor consensus is at best a waste of good editors' time, and at worst a disruption that allows disruptive editors to distract good editors from constructive activities.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until AlaskaMike decided to vent some enthusiatic (and misplaced) sarcasm, this quite obviously has not been discussed since the emerging AfD consensus was clear. Epeefleche, you are treading on wafer thin ice here, and you know it. _wjemather ^bigissue 11:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy declined

Speedy deletion declined. The article is sourced and the subject is making worldwide headlines. Use WP:AFD if you think this should be deleted. Sandstein 16:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. _wjemather ^bigissue 16:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How old was he as an emmigrant or immigrant at? family structure? connections? who paid for us immig trip? Fam? or other? Parents here in U.S.? are they from the "same town [in mid-east]" or tribal?? -V-tech & Ft Hood SOCIOLOGICAL QUANTIFICATION ....research: war on poverty, social fabric, loose geographic screws [not "nuts" $QrU!-danger...], social INJUSTICE has a reflective resonance [ethno-"empathy of locals"]of 1st gen immitation YOUTH! not happy, immigrants, EMMIGRATION -to a somali fish camp! geo-justice A.N.N.Y.T. tyn man OZ destructO's quantification SOCIAL POLICY specification ID [ft hood v-tech] of "DOMESTIC TERRORISM" from "an Oregon youth". I ask... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brennanmoriarty (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding comment is not intelligible and should be removed from this discussion page. A lizard (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

I inadvertently created a parallel article at 2010 Oregon bomb plot. Dawnseeker2000 01:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply redirect it to here? tedder (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. _wjemather ^bigissue 02:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should renamed to 2010 Oregon bomb plot, as opposed to being deleted. VR _talk 17:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]