Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism
Points of interest related to Terrorism on Wikipedia: History – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
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.
- 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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Terrorism. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- 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.
watch |
List of Terrorism deletion discussions
edit- 2024 Tel Aviv truck attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:LASTING, seems to be WP:NOTNEWS. EF5 19:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Israel. EF5 19:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Kept five weeks ago, with very few delete opinions. Geschichte (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: No lasting effects, all news is from over a month ago at this point. The media cycle has moved on it seems. Two deaths is rather routine and nothing out of the ordinary, even in a regular traffic accident. This isn't the Yonge Street attack in Toronto where a dozen people got caught... Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete There appears to be coverage after the first week. LASTING and NOTNEWS definitely apply. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to List of vehicle-ramming attacks or Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2024. Concerns above do apply but it is in the scope of those two lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm not aware of much continued coverage so far (it's still early), but that isn't strictly required, and the initial coverage was quite extensive, easily meeting WP:N(E)'s standard of
very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources
. There are far too many RS to list, probably 100+. Just to mention some of the largest: BBC, NBC, CBS, Reuters, Al Jazeera, NPR. The article needs work but there's ample source material. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)- XDanielx, your quoted standard refers to national or international impact, but I'm not sure any of your linked sources go over that in any detail? Can you clarify what you believe the lasting effects are? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Abu Sayyaf (Islamic State leader) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not seeing any indication that this meets WP:LASTING here. Routine death in long civil war. CutlassCiera 22:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Terrorism, and Tunisia. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Not sure the oil and gas minister for the IS is notable, this many years later. Article is strictly around his death, without much before or after... I don't find any coverage other than about the capture. Oaktree b (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Longhornsg (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Was a key senior figure" is not going to cut it in terms of notability. The main concern of no lasting effect is in that coverage cuts off. CutlassCiera 03:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Was" because he's dead. The relevant policy here is WP:NBASIC, which the coverage suffices. WP:LASTING applies to events, not people, anyway. Longhornsg (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:Lasting does not apply to people. It is part of the event SNG, and as such does not apply to anything that is not an event. The only people-related guideline would be BIO1E, which does not apply here (many events). PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Regardless, the article and the coverage, as stated by Oaktree b, is strictly about his death. There isn't any other evidence that he is notable besides his way of death. CutlassCiera 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is very clearly not true. The WSJ piece is about his entire life. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Regardless, the article and the coverage, as stated by Oaktree b, is strictly about his death. There isn't any other evidence that he is notable besides his way of death. CutlassCiera 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Was a key senior figure" is not going to cut it in terms of notability. The main concern of no lasting effect is in that coverage cuts off. CutlassCiera 03:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Longhornsg. There does seem to be sourcing attesting to his importance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Glostrup Terrorists Case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relatively minor case of arrest and prosecution. WP:NEVENT without much followup information. Hornpipe2 (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Terrorism. Hornpipe2 (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep but rescope. there seems to be continued coverage to pass NEVENT to me [1], also lots of book coverage [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
- This article is a hot mess though and needs to be renamed, and possibly rescoped to focus on this in combination with the arrests in Bosnia which this is really a subtopic of. I would suggest rescoping on the overarching terror plot which resulted in arrests in several countries. We actually have a completely separate article on one of the people related to this plan, Mirsad Bektašević, which should probably be merged into an article on the terror plot since he is BLP1E and the coverage isn't so prolific as to necessitate or benefit from multiple articles. Something here is notable but we aren't covering it the best way - not a reason for deletion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ibar-Lepenac attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Looks like a classic textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS. While this event has made headlines recently, there weren't any casualties or injuries and the canal has been repaired. Most of the article is about "reactions" from other countries. Seems more apt for a one or two sentence mention in other articles, such as North Kosovo crisis (2022–2024) than an article of its own. Griboski (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Kosovo. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)1
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Griboski (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose: The argument that this event, declared a terrorist attack, is not notable overlooks the critical damage it caused to vital infrastructure, which provides essential water to multiple municipalities and supports energy production in Kosovo. The incident has had significant national security implications and is not merely a local crime, but part of a larger regional struggle. Additionally, it has garnered extensive media coverage both in Kosovo and internationally, which further underscores its notability. It has been widely reported by major international outlets, with considerable attention from the EU and other key actors. As investigation continues, the article can be updated and expanded, and contributions from editors are encouraged as new information becomes available. Iaof2017 (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I strongly believe the article on the North Kosovo crisis (2022-2024) should not have been capped at the year 2024 and I view it as arbitrary. The continual escalation that started in 2022 has not seen an end. I agree that this article does not contain enough relevant information to stand on its own and should be deleted. However, the canal incident cannot be ignored entirely, it should be added to the aforementioned article on the North Kosovo crisis. Аккумулятор (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:EVENT:
Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
The event has been discussed by many sources beyond the early news cycle and it will continue to be relevant because of its consequences.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC) - Strongly support It's not particularly significant. Labeling an event as a "terrorist attack" doesn't necessarily make it so, it can also reflect a particular political viewpoint. That said, this article should be deleted and its content merged into other existing articles. A variety of perspectives and nuances, which would align with NPOV principles, are currently absent. — Sadko (words are wind) 23:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- The incident was recognised as a terrorist attack by both the Kosovan authorities and international actors, not just based on political views. Again for you, it targeted important infrastructure with the intent to cause fear and disruption, which fits the definition of terrorism. It wasn't just a label, it was a deliberate act with serious security and regional consequences. So please stop trying to downplay it, your argument simply doesn't hold up!! Iaof2017 (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Just because there were no casualties doesnt mean that a subject with this amount of importance shouldnt have its own article, similarly to the Battle of Lojane which had no casualties but still has its own article as it was an important event. Peja mapping (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - only because you have a redirect to Ibar-Lepenac canal explosion linked above, not the article itself. I don't think you want to delete the redirect and leave the article standing. — Maile (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)