Talk:2015 New Year's attack plots

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 9 February 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, and wait for result of AfD discussion. The decision made there (keep, delete, merge) will in some ways inform any subsequent decisions about where it should reside. If there's appetite for a further RM discussion once the deletion is decided, please open one then. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]



2015 New Year's attack plotsList of unsuccessful plots by ISIL – Expand page to include all foiled attacks by ISIL. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support move to much-needed list on this topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it would have been more appropriate to create a separate article and potentially merge some of the content there. I think having a move request occurring simultaneously to an AFD just muddies the waters. AusLondonder (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this discussion - we can not have a merge discussion here while at the same time having a AfD discussion that is still ongoing.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ User:BabbaQ In this case, it does make sense to have two discussions, because it makes a hell of a lot more sense to make an article about all failed ISIL plots. I would actually suggest closing the deletion discussion, as the article is clearly notable by Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We never have two discussions about one article open at one time User:Philmonte101. It is deceptive. Period.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this article should not be moved or merged. Just for the record.BabbaQ (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Failed attacks[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirit Ethanol (talkcontribs) 15:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russia[edit]

United Kingdom[edit]