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:
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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.
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, LizRead!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
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Desertarun (
talk) 15:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 16:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge as suggested. Sadly, like shootings since 2012 in the United States, terrorist attacks in Pakistan around 2009 were
all too common and part of a pattern.
Bearian (
talk) 14:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Desertarun (
talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 16:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge as suggested. Sadly, like shootings since 2012 in the United States, terrorist attacks in Pakistan around 2013 were
all too common and part of a pattern.
Bearian (
talk) 14:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply