Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Terrorism. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Terrorism|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Terrorism.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism/archive

Purge page cache

watch

List of Terrorism deletion discussions[edit]

Escouade de contre-terrorisme et de libération d'otages[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged uncited since 2008 and the French article also has no sources. Maybe someone with more language skill than me can tell whether it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wadi Dawan attack[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the coverage is from the time of the event in January 2008. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, Yemen, and Belgium. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorism in Yemen, there was some coverage the next year from Belgian publications over the perpetrators getting the death penalty for terrorism, but I don't think it's in depth enough to justify an individual article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This event article meets the requirements of the GNG, EVENT, and LASTING by plenty of coverage at the time of the event and since. For more recent coverage, see "Voice of a Voyage: Rediscovering the World During a Ten-year Circumnavigation" by Doann Houghton-Alico, from 2016, in Google Books. Not sure why this has been nominated for deletion. The research leaves to be desired. Furthermore, the merger suggested above my opinion would create a situation of undue and should also be rejected. Wadi Dawan attack is a proper SPINOFF. gidonb (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"plenty of coverage at the time of the event" does not meet WP:EFFECT and WP:NOTNEWS applies. You've found 1 source, are there others? LibStar (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is untrue. I found plenty of sourcing AND ESTABLISHED LASTING WITH AN RS! This nomination is a clear BEFORE failure! There needn't be more sources than one since 2008 because the event was less than 20 years ago. However, there are two. It also appears in The Last Good Man: A Novel, page 33, A.J. Kazinski, from 2012. Libstar, you frequently claim fact-free that events are not LASTING. Why would you do that? gidonb (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of sourcing? you've mentioned a mere 2. If this nomination is a failure it would be a unanimous keep which it isn't. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please supply actual text from the 2 books you cite? I'm interested in what it says. Thanks LibStar (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"There needn't be more sources than one since 2008 because the event was less than 20 years ago." You're now inventing rules for notability. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of contemporaneous sourcing for the GNG. Really big numbers. Enough to visit the articles in the other wikis to see that. In addition, there is more than sufficient sourcing from books to prove that this has a LASTING impact just as well. Therefore meets the GNG and EVENT. gidonb (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please supply actual text from the 2 books you cite? LibStar (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you look in Google Books and withdraw this nomination after you do? You should have done a BEFORE upfront! gidonb (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please supply actual text from the 2 books you cite? Why can't you provide this? LibStar (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something you're hiding by not producing text as requested? LibStar (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I try to lead a life also beyond your failed nominations. Some 10 books write about this incident beyond the contemporaneous coverage that is also extensive. I gave 5 examples. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the article meets the GNG based on contemporaneous coverage and that all your fact-free nominations of terrorist incidents under your assumption that these get forgotten – this isn't so and LASTING is met. Terrorism is a real problem and these events get revisited time and again. gidonb (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS trumps GNG. Otherwise we'll be creating articles for every event reported in the media. There was a factory fire near my home, should I create an article because it meets GNG? LibStar (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or a few weeks ago, Australia's east coast received a lot of rainfall, well reported in all the media, but why isn't there a Wikipedia article for it? LibStar (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS DOES not apply to terrorist events with a LASTING IMPACT. You are wasting the valuable time of the community by making baseless claims, and then arguing under the opinion of everyone who disagrees with you, after it is found that haven't done a thorough BEFORE. You have already written eight times under my opinion while you should have invested time before nominating instead of wasting mine. gidonb (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least one other editor (PARAKANYAA) doesn't agree with you. Everyone's time on WP is voluntary, how you choose to spend yours is your choice. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Which page number of "Voice of a Voyage: Rediscovering the World During a Ten-year Circumnavigation" are you referring to? it's a 276 page book. so page number would be helpful. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's on two pages in the book. There are more book mentions. About five, not counting other languages than English. gidonb (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two pages in the middle of Chapter 9. Google Books does not provide page numbers for this particular book.

Which pages? LibStar (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found the text: About a month prior to that in Wadi Dawan,...two Belgian tourists and their driver were killed by a group of insurgents. A 1 line mention in a 276 page book is hardly WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned. Coverage continued on the next page. gidonb (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also here:

Doctrine of Terror: Saudi Salafi Religion - Page 214, Mahboob Illahi, 2018
Yemen Mineral, Mining Sector Investment and Business Guide - Page 189, IBP USA, 2013
Yemen: Dancing on the Heads of Snakes, Page 230, Victoria Clark, 2010

Hang on, closer to ten. This nomination ranks among the more failed ones. gidonb (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked p.230 of "Yemen: Dancing on the Heads of Snakes". the slaughter of the two Belgian women tourists and their driver in the Wadi Doan A 1 sentence mention in a 300+ page book is not WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly in Doctrine of Terror: Saudi Salafi Religion - Page 214, Al-Qaeda militants opened fire on a convoy of tourists in Hadharmauy, killing two Belgian tourists... A 1 sentence mention in a 324 page book is not WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant. The SIGCOV is contemporaneous. The article meets the GNG based on contemporaneous SIGCOV in RS. However, since it is an event, that's insufficient for keeping. In addition, there also needs to be interest in this event over time since for LASTING. Lasting has also been established. Instead of arguing more, this failed nomination should be withdrawn. gidonb (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, and I think your statement is contrary to NEVENT (which is somewhat confusing but still). There isn't enough to keep this as standalone.

I'm of the opinion that terrorist attacks are almost always notable as part of a pattern, and should be mentioned somewhere: a merge accomplishes this. To warrant its own article there must be enough coverage on something to write besides "it happened, people got arrested". None of the later sources you provided are enough. IMO, the most important factors are a mix of both quality and distance of coverage in writing these kinds of an articles. A single high quality retrospective on an event would do a whole lot more for convincing me to vote keep than say, continuing legal developments. This isn't even that, these are just one or two sentences! Not sigcov. I also doubt this would pass on "effect" grounds. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PARAKANYAA LibStar (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there was lots of coverage of this event when it happened. I never went in to that. Only discussed coverage since. gidonb (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOTNEWS, WP is not News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style A spike in coverage at the time of the event is not a good indicator of notability. For example, there was a factory fire near my home covered in the media, should I create an article because it meets GNG? LibStar (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also irrelevant. This is an event with global and lasting coverage. gidonb (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lasting coverage which is not indepth as pointed out by PARAKANYAA. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Yemen Mineral, Mining Sector Investment and Business Guide - Page 189, Belgian tourists and their Yemeni driver were killed in Hadhramout governorate in eastern Yemen. Again, another 1 sentence mention (in a book of 260 pages) that isn't WP:SIGCOV. None of these 1 sentence mentions in the 4 additional sources given establish WP:EFFECT, An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Bin Salman mosque bombing[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The 2 sources provided are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, Islam, and Yemen. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subsequent reactions to the event are presented in the zh.wiki page, here is one source: [1] where the attack is described as "a dangerous escalation in the northern conflict". Broc (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That one source is from the day after the attack, so is part of the news cycle, WP:NOTNEWS. We need lasting coverage to see an WP:EFFECT. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorism in Yemen under its own section. The coverage above does not convince me of long term notability; there was some commentary immediately after it occured, but not a lot. Most notable as part of the overall terrorism situation (which merging it to the article preserves) It's possible of course that long term coverage exists in another language and if evidence of that is ever provided I would not argue against its recreation, but I doubt it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Khyber bombing[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the sources provided are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. Whilst it may be terrorism, the sources do not definitively establish that. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023, where it's already mentioned. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or merge selectively) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023#April. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Chaman suicide bombing[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The 9 sources are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per usual disclaimers (later sources may exist in other languages, it's Pakistan), merge (cut down version) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: per PARAKANYAA. Queen of ♡ | speak 03:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

May 2017 Peshawar bombings[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The 4 sources are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. Also no deaths reported so WP:NOTNEWS also applies. LibStar (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (cut down) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. Sources describe it as terrorism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Republican Movement[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was never notable in the first place, although it had the potential to be at the start. There was a brief flurry of news in relation to a statement they put out, but no sources that covered the organisation in any significant depth. No publicity since that statement at all. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Terrorism, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the references already present in the article establish notability. Even if the group is no longer active, "once notable, always notable." I seem to remember someone saying that some of the people in the handout photo that appears in several of the references weren't holding their weapons correctly, implying that this was never a serious group. I can't confirm this, though. Nonetheless, reliable sources have covered this group, which means it's notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was never notable, although it had the potential to be if it had actually done anything. But other than releasing a statement, they've done nothing. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland). (And remove from Template:IRAs.) Per nom, the (current) topic/subject of the title (the org which asserted this name) is not notable. And never was. The only coverage suggests that a group(?), giving itself this name, released a statement (maybe two), back in 2019/2020. And that, seemingly, is all. The coverage, of those statements, doesn't meet WP:SIRS. In which the "S" ("S"ignificant) requires "significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth". The coverage does NOT cover the subject org in any depth. At all. (For all we know the "group" could have 2 members. If even that.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The comment above mine makes a great point; once notable, always notable. Even if the group isn't as active as it used to be, there's nothing wrong with keeping it around as it provides insight into the contemporary Dissident movement.

Castroonthemoon (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except, as repeatedly pointed out, it was never notable in the first place. A brief flurry of news about a single statement does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. See also guidance at WP:ORGDEPTH, there has to be coverage that "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland) - Per the argument put forward by Guliolopez. I agree with Guliolopez and Kathleen's bike that sources (or rather lack of) indicate that this organisation did not ever materialise in reality. While it's supposed founding was touted, it was never actually active. One press release is not enough to justify an article. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group), where it is already mentioned. I agree that the topic is not standalone notable, but it's better discussed at the article where it splintered from, rather than just redirected to the main article on the republican movement. -- asilvering (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals[edit]