Deletion of 2007 Plot to Behead a British Muslim Soldier

Comment: the article obviously passess otability (see all the source above), reliable sources have assigned significance to it beyond a routine terror plot, the incident has received international coverage over the course of multiple days.  Also, OTNEWS '''is not a guideline''' yet--please do not keep citing it!  Though it may not be your intent, it can be misleading.  Someone who isn't directly involved with the project may mistake it for established Wikipedia policy/guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: meets  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: notable current event, covered by major sources across the world, meeting Wikipedia:Notability which is a guideline.  is a highly debated proposal that explicitly contradicts , does not have consensus, and, frankly, it does seem like the nomination is overly strongly tied to the effort to make the proposal a guideline. We should be debating the specific article here, not the proposal
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:N)

Comment: Per  Three BBC stories over a 2 day period are refeerences for the article. Several men were arrested, and then several of them were released without charges. Clearly news, not clearly encyclopedic. An encyclopedia is not an archive of everything that was in the news in some locality for a little while
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per above, especially due to the apparent  violation. The article should get a proper NPOV name that meets simplicity guidelines in , e.g. 2007 British beheading plot
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:NC)

Comment: but virtually all that belongs in a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. Agreed that this might well be a valid topic if legislation is passed as a result of this. At the moment, this just does not meet  - admittedly still only a proposed guideline - and will not do until someone makes a film or some legislation. To be honest, I'd be surprised if anyone does pass any new laws over this. It's just another averted terror plot. Lots of those these days
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: or merge to an appropriate, encyclopedically-important subject.  aside, this is not the wiki-newspaper. That would be two blocks down and take a right at http://www.wikinews.org Wikinews. If it becomes clear that this event is of historic and lasting (and therefore encyclopedic) importance (hundred-year test), great, make its own article then, but for now, I'm sure Wikinews would be very glad for help on this ''newspaper'', not ''encyclopedia'', item. It's just too bad we can't transwiki stuff directly to them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: This article complies with all the relevant threshold policies for inclusion - (independent 3rd party citings),  (verifiable sources exist). Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia which means it can go into a lot more detail than usual encyclopedias. This is an important detail within the overall subject of Terrorism in the United Kingdom which you wouldn't want to include in the main article as it would make this too long
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: I don't think it's entirely true that the point of this nomination was to push the adoption of  and hence violates . This AFD doesn't disrupt wikipedia per . NOTNEWS is currenly being debated in order to find a consensus and the related AFD discussions (more are listed at WT:NOTNEWS) are all an important way to find that consensus. The conclusion of this debate will be an important guide to the debate on NOTNEWS but I don't think there's anything wrong with this
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:POINT||WP:POINT)