Talk:2005 Indonesian embassy bioterrorism hoax

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 December 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Australia: Canberra / Crime Low‑importance

	Australia portal 2005 Indonesian embassy bioterrorism hoax is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canberra (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Indonesia Low‑importance

	Indonesia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

earlier comments

Any thoughts on VFding this seeing as it didn't turn out to be a biological attack? I don't think it's particularly notable now, as just some random hoax. Ambi 09:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the coverage generated by the incident is real and is notable, but the article could certainly be renamed, i think. perhaps 2005 Indonesian embassy bioterrorism hoax. clarkk 11:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree with clarkk. I created the article, in early days. The renaming suits better now. -- Longhair | Talk 12:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's obviously real, but I don't know that it's notable. If there hadn't been the initial inkling that it might've been real, then there's no way this article would've been written. I don't think the event is likely to be remembered in a month's time, let alone a year. Ambi 16:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

it was widely covered all over the world see the Google News coverage. if it hadn't come after the Corby verdict, then I agree it wouldn't have been that notable, but for better or worse it was. i don't think it's any less notable than the various anthrax hoaxes in the US. anyway the definition of a hoax is that people initially do think it is real, and the fact that it appears to be the first attempt at a hoax designed to look like a biological agent in Australia means that it would have been written about either way. however since it was followed up by another hoax attack on Downer's office, perhaps the article could be renamed to List of Australian bioterrorism hoaxes. clarkk 09:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Prior Aussie anthrax hoaxes

Many have speculated the hoax attack is related to the recent sentencing of Schapelle Corby to 20 years imprisonment in Indonesia for drug trafficking. The incident is the first of its type on Australian soil. The embassy remained closed for several days following the incident.

This isn't the first hoax in Australia. See, for example Ten-year jail terms for anthrax hoaxes (16 October 2001):

IAN MCMINN, REPORTER: So far there have been more than 60 anthrax alerts across Australia.

It could be the first one against an embassy though. Andjam 03:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]