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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Az-Za'ayyem checkpoint shooting

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

No secondary coverage. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence of notability here. I wouldn't object if there was an appropriate place to add it to a list somewhere, but it doesn't merit an article. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The news reports are primary sources, reporting of the incident. As we have no secondary sources at all, this fails WP:GNG. Thus it fails WP:N on the first limb, but also it fails on the second, as Wikipedia is Not a newspaper. As that fails under the WP:NOT policy it does not meet WP:N at all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hardly any sourcing about the event that I find, only a reddit post. What's now used for sourcing is confirmation of the event as it happened, nothing since. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : not notable Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:00, 28 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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Fly List Kids

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

Does not pass WP:NORG. Mentioned in passing in some articles but no sigcov outside of non-independent and opinion sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, and Canada. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, doesn't pass WP:NORG. Media is mostly passing mentions or primary sources. XwycP3 (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : not notable Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to dispute the claims by the nominator. There definitely exists SIGCOV, but I think it's less clear whether this should kept. I see coverage starting around 2016-2017, such as these video segments: [1][2]. CBC in 2019 reported that NFLK "represents dozens of families across Canada who have been affected by the list and pushing for change", even after the House passed Bill C-59; also in 2019 there were articles from The Globe and Mail [3] and Huffington Post [4], and a CityNews video segment [5]. In 2020 CTV News reported that members of the group were "invited to test federal remedy" to the issue; that was also covered by Global News [6]. This was a cursory search but I think there's a case to be made because of the continued advocacy by the group prior to the federal government's action in 2020. Bridget (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Before I can close, I need to ask User:Bridget, are you arguing for a Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Yes, thank you for checking. I'll change to a keep. I'm concerned that all the other comments are simply asserting that it's "not notable" or "doesn't pass WP:NORG" without much elaboration. Bridget (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads somewhat like promotional content and isn't written well. It also doesn't pass WP:NORG. ^Wiinter_U 04:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. That page title sounds like something a really bored vandal would create. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bridget. Appears to have SIGCOV and deletion is not cleanup. मल्ल (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are a mixture of primary sourcing that isn't support for notability at all and coverage about the general issue of kids wrongly name-matching the No Fly List — what isn't being shown is any significant coverage which has this organization as its subject. To be fair, this is different enough from the version that was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Fly List Kids Legislation (Canada) that I can't recommend immediate speedy as a recreation of previously deleted content, but this version isn't making a stronger case that this organization would pass WP:NORG at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 4 April 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. asilvering (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Yokneam attack

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Am open to suitable redirect/merge proposals, but otherwise this seems pretty small beer in the context of the current war. TheLongTone (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this proposal is fundamentally flawed and reflects a lack of understanding. Your last sentence, and I quote — "but otherwise this seems pretty small beer in the context of the current war" — reveals a serious misunderstanding of the situation in Israel. The terror attack has no direct connection to Israel's war in Gaza. Attacks like the one that occurred today have been happening in Israel long before the current conflict began. In fact, this is a long-standing modus operandi among certain Arab groups that has persisted for years. Rafi Chazon (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is also conducting a war in other parts of Palestine. So this is an incident in the current war.TheLongTone (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these kinds of terror attacks on Israeli soil are not part of the war proper. Israel is a country that tends to retrospect on such things, so more of their terror attacks end up being notable per our standards. But this does not seem an especially prominent one. Happened yesterday so kind of difficult to tell what will happen with the coverage (not a good idea to make pages this soon on this kind of thing). PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not because it is overshadowed by the war but because I doubt this will fulfill NEVENT. If a merge target is suggested I would likely support that. If this proves notable in the future I would support undeletion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't understand the rationale behind this nomination, it is a notable terrorist attack which has RS discussing it. Just because it tragically happens often, and the same country it happens in is also fighting a war, it makes this less important somehow? If this would happen in London or New York you wouldn't question its notability. Maybe you should delete Donald Trump, it seems pretty beer in the context of American politics. Yeshivish613 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a consensus for this sort of article. It's not the first time it's happened. Yeshivish613 (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Instead of outright deletion, it can at least get a mention in List of vehicle-ramming attacks. Though to Yeshivish's point about setting precedent, maybe it would make sense to create an article with a paragraph or so about each of the somewhat notable vehicle ramming attacks in Israel? --Bob drobbs (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:News article for an event that is not the subject of sustained secondary coverage. Not opposed to a merge of some sort, though I don't know about the vehicle-ramming target since the fatality was from gunfire. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not that notable of an incident. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:20, 8 April 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 Tuareg rebellion (2012). I see a clear consensus for merging, but some disagreement as to the preferred target. tucoxn makes a valid point for a different target, but consensus seems to be for Tuareg rebellion (2012). This does not preclude a separate discussion about the best target on the Talk page. Owen× ☎ 15:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azawad conflict

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

I think this article is useless. Everything about the conflict in Azawad is perfectly summarized in Mali War and Tuareg rebellion (2012) articles. Plus, this article has many errors and is lacking citations for decade. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This article can probably be merged into Mali War, but "I think this article is useless" is not a valid reason for nominating an article for deletion as it is not a part of deletion policy. Content issues can be highlighted on the talk page and with the addition of maintenance tags (e.g. More citations needed, Disputed). A merge proposal should have been considered first. Yue🌙 23:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tuareg rebellion (2012). Duplicate article on the same conflict. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two separate Merge target article suggestions and XFDcloser only allows one. Which one is preferable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Tuareg rebellion (2012) article, of which it's a fork. Bearian (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I support merging it into the Tuareg rebellion (2012) as there is no reason for a separate article. Unicorbia (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mali War. Please do not merge into Tuareg rebellion (2012). The Tuareg rebellion (16 January 2012 – 6 April 2012) was an antecedent to the Azawad conflict (27 June 2012 – present). Also the Tuareg rebellion was what happened at the beginning of the ongoing Mali War (16 January 2012 – present), and the Azawad conflict is but one component of the Mali War. The Mali War is a much bigger conflict (including the Coordination of Azawad Movements, Al-Qaeda, Islamic State – Sahel Province, Boko Haram, and others) than the Azawad conflict. The Azawad conflict includes the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (part of the Coordination of Azawad Movements) and AQIM, but not ISSP and Boko Haram, which are both active parts of the Mali War. I agree that stating, "I think this article is useless" is not a valid argument for nominating an article for deletion as usefulness is not a part of Wikipedia's deletion policy. - tucoxn\^talk 19:40, 1 April 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 Kurdistan Workers' Party#July 2015–present: Third insurgency. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Gaziantep attack

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

Blantant violation of WP:NOTNEWS. This is lack any WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Additionally, this feels like a WP:POV article, most of the sources are affiliated with Turkish Goverment. The creator is also known for creating POV-pushing articles. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Turkey. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kurdistan Workers' Party#July 2015–present: Third insurgency, or at least use some of the sources to add a sentence to that section. I realise this article is fairly new, but the creator doesn't seem to have read all their sources - one states that the number killed rose to 3 (not 2 as in the article), and that the attacks were carried out by the PKK's Syrian branch, the YPG (perpetrators only named in the info box as the PKK). RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to target suggested above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTNEWS, this doesn't warrant a standalone article. Merge / redirect would also be okay. Ravensfire (talk) 02:34, 25 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.

Proposals