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.

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.

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism/archive

Purge page cache

watch

List of Terrorism deletion discussions

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 keep‎. Per numerous citations and reliable sources, as indicated by the keep voters, there is a consensus to retain the page (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli support for Hamas

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

This is not a significat topic of study or coverage. Much of the article is synthetically composed of material from sources unrelated to the article topic—which is not itself a reason for deletion, rather for revision, but from my research it appears that this is a reflection of the lack of significant coverage of this topic. Any relevant material not already there can be merged into History of Hamas. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The article has abundant citations from ~~primary~~ reliable sources. Certainly not every article cited has this as its main subject, but enough do to indicate that this is a noteworthy topic. Display name 99 (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by primary sources? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "reliable" is more of what I was going for. Edited accordingly. Display name 99 (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing that most of the articles with this as their primary topic are just characterizing Israel's earlier Hamas policy as favoring it against the PLO, and generally avoid using the language of "support". The fact that there's no academic source on the "Israeli support of Hamas" is telling. As an analogy, we wouldn't have an article for "Indian provocations of Pakistan", though there are many articles assessing Indian foreign policy as doing so—the information from those sources would belong on Wikipedia, but don't collectively suggest "Indian provocations of Pakistan" as a notable topic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are enough citations from reliable sources over a long time span mentioning the topic (although not always using the exact word "support" - the article could be renamed something like "Role of the Israeli government in the rise to power to Hamas" or "Israeli enabling of Hamas," if it's necessary to avoid the word "support"). NHCLS (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a controversial subject, could we see a source analysis? Thanks, in advance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the article has numerous citations from reliable sources (as per Display name 99), though the article should be renamed to something such as "Israeli enabling of Hamas" as per NHCLS. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2025 (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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Samarkhel

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

Quite the same rationale as of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Siege of Samarkhel: The article is possibly a WP:HOAX, with no sign of independent significant coverage and only passing mentions: The Mujahideen managed to seize Samarkhel village east of Jalalabad in the sources. Also it look likes it's a WP:SAMETYPEFORK. – Garuda ^Talk! 23:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Terrorism, Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America. – Garuda ^Talk! 23:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The Siege of Samarkhel is the original article before someone made the “First Siege of Samarkhel” article. They deleted the entire article to make it but I luckily reverted it. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources that mention the fighting in Samarkhel:

https://www.rebellionresearch.com/what-happened-in-the-battle-of-jalalabad

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/13/world/jalalabad-shows-its-recovery-as-siege-by-rebels-dwindles.html

However, this “siege” was part of the Battle of Jalalabad but I did not make this article. I don’t know whose idea was it to call it a “siege”. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the seige, one of the sources only mentions that Samarkhel was seized ^[1]. Even if a seige did take place, it isn't notable enough for a standalone article. AlvaKedak (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Timtim76 (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Per nomination. Rubik's Cube 3x3 20:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Roy, Kaushik (2014). War and State-Building in Afghanistan: Historical and Modern Perspectives. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 135. ISBN 9781472572196.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This would seem like a slam-dunk deletion but two editors who argued for Deletion are very inexperienced which makes me wonder how they turned up at this AFD. This situation causes me to relist this discussion to get more feedback from our experienced AFD regulars.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Going through the 14 sources currently on the article as I write this.

- [1] Appears to be LLM/AI generated based on the website, lack of sources, and lack of author. It also fails to mention a seige of Samarkhil (note the spelling difference) but does mention that the village was part of the defenses of Jalalabad (if we can trust what it says).

- [2] A reliable source about the Battle/Siege of Jalalabad that does mention Samarkhel in passing but it doesn't appear that there was any significant siege of that location.

- [3] Another reliable source talking about the siege of Jalalabad, no mention of Samarkhel.

- [4] Page 45 as the citation claims is about the year 1000 CE, so it is only 980 or so years off. The book does mention Jalalabad (unsure of full context though) with only a brief mention of Samarkhel.

- [5] Another solid looking book that mentions Samarkhel as a location but nothing about a siege.

- [6] same source as number [2]

- [7] no mention of Samarkhil or Samarkhel, only 2 results for Jalalabad.

- [8] This mentions Samarkhel as a frontline, but in the battle of Jalalabad, not its own siege.

- [9] Same source as [4], this time the page marked is the singular mention of Samakhel, but again it appears to be a brief mention, not its own topic.

- [10] mentions Samarkhel (Mountain) purely in relation to being near Jalalabad.

- [11] Unfortunately Google books doesn't have Search Inside for this one so No Comment.

- [12] Same as [1], just as bad now as it was then.

- [13] Someone with military history training might tell me if this is important? but as far as I can tell it just talks about Jalalabad.

- [14] Same as [8]

Overall I think this article was mistakenly created from the Siege/Battle of Jalalabad article and should be deleted. It doesn't appear as if there was any actual siege that occurred for this to even be worthy of a redirect to the main page instead. Moritoriko (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources provided only mention Samarkhel in passing as part of the Battle of Jalalabad, not as a separate siege, violating WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, the article appears to be a WP:SAMETYPEFORK of the broader battle. NXcrypto Message 20:28, 1 March 2025 (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.

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 Jarret Brachman. Sandstein 09:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jihobbyist

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a neologism, and does not meet our standards for it. There is actually a lot of usage of the term, but it's always referring to it in the context of its creator, and should be merged to the creator of the term, Jarret Brachman. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage. It's hilarious, and I'm a fan of portmanteaux myself (I invented mergetarian in 2008), but as the years have passed, we've become more strict with notability. Bearian (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will do the merge myself if the consensus is not to keep. There is coverage, it's just in the context of its creator. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the creator, per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:02, 27 February 2025 (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.

Proposals

[1] Roy, Kaushik (2014). War and State-Building in Afghanistan: Historical and Modern Perspectives. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 135. ISBN 9781472572196.

[1]