Deletion of Ringsted terror plot

Comment: Per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID)

Comment: A few voters on the side of keep argue there is in-depth coverage; however, these news stories are typical of the |news cycle. Another editor argues simply |rapid, even though that is a double-edged sword and past its expiration in this case. A few even admit the article is in a poor state which is a ''huge'' deal for |BLPs. The simple facts of the matter are that we cannot claim there is |sustained coverage with the expected news reports as our “evidence” or sufficient coverage to satisfy our |notability guidelines on events, all while somehow somehow negating our core policy of NOTNEWS. A |lasting impact cannot possibly be seen without a |crystal ball so notability has not been established on several counts—and cannot be until we move beyond the news cycle crimes are afforded
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RAPID||WP:BLP||WP:SUSTAINED||WP:NEVENT||WP:LASTING||WP:CRYSTALBALL)

Comment: Let's don't lower the threshold. Enough time is passed and given the |poor coverage of the event after the incident, I think we can safely remove this item per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SUSTAINED||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per  & . No apparent lasting significance or societal impact
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID||WP:NOTNEWS)