Deletion of 2011 failed Gothenburg terrorist attack

Comment: Sources are from the period of this event, no demonstration of ''enduring historical significance'' so as per  '''policy''' this should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)

Comment: Ryan.Germany accompanies its votes with arguments and sources. LibStar votes http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=LibStar Delete at almost every AfD typically with the "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions"  of "Just pointing at a policy or guideline" 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AADD||WP:JUSTAPOLICY)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER||WP:EVENT)

Comment: if this must be deleted, then it should be merged to Wikinews, it's better way about the up to date information conflicting terrorism. Wikipedia has guidelines for  and  topics so we can't put the up to date information there
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER||WP:EVENT)

Comment: This is the true threat to the Wikipedia, editors who wish to turn us away from an encyclopedia and into an arm of Google News.  Editors who approach article-writing with the mindset of "X number of mentions in sources == article creation".   to a T
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.''  wp:GNG|Where Have I read that around here?  Seriously, did any of you citing NOTNEWS (now depreciated in favor of  actually read what it says: ''For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia''.  This is not a routine announcement or a football score.  This is a major news story, and the coverage definitely qualifies as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)

Comment: per .  This is run-of-the-mill news involving run-of-the-mill policework stopping a run-of-the-mill crime.  Nothing here gives any evidence that this event will have a lasting significance beyond any other random event from news cycle
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: ecx2) Clearly falls under .  Everything that Al-qaida touches does not make that item notable on its own.  If someone really believes that this should be kept, then it should be moved to the section of the Al-qaida article on failed projects
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)

Comment: Ongoing investigation of an event that is notable, there is no  for deletion here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:There is no deadline (WP:DEADLINE)

Comment: per : no indication this will have any lasting coverage or effect. If it turns out to after all, there's always re-creation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Obviously... without a doubt. This article is about a total non-incident and fails  utterly. This reminds me of the aviation wikiproject and how its members want to make an article every time a plane hits an especially hard bump on the runway
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per . Also odd to me that none of the news links are local to the event
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)