Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thebiguglyalien (talk | contribs) at 20:39, 27 March 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Tapuah Junction shooting.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
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. Much of this AfD revolved around the question of whether news is primary or secondary source. True, WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an explanatory essay, but it is broadly accepted as our best practice. Even if there were a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS among participants in this AfD to deprecate WP:PRIMARYNEWS - which there isn't - it would not supercede the general consensus. Furthermore, even ignoring WP:PRIMARYNEWS, WP:SECONDARY tells us the same, especially when combined with Note d and the accompanying definitions from Duke University Libraries. With the policy question out of the way, it is easier to assess consensus here. I see a rough consensus to delete the article. I see no proposal for an ATD, but any EC editor is welcome to recreate the page as a redirect to a suitable target. Owen× ☎ 20:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Tapuah Junction shooting

2021 Tapuah Junction shooting (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)

No secondary coverage. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien hello, im not familiar with the English Wikipedia article deletion policy, so i would be happy if you would be able to explain to me why 2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing, and 2010 Tapuah Junction stabbing considered notable enough for an article, and this article isn't. There an important detail that i didn't mention in the article cause i didn't found source in English for this particular claim but there a lot of Hebrew sources. This detail is the fact that the settlement of Evyatar was re-establish be Israeli settlers as "response" for this attack.Benbaruch (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone would have to look at those articles, but it's possible they aren't notable either. Articles about events on the English Wikipedia require sustained coverage beyond the initial reporting of the event. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thebiguglyalien, i understand, but what do think about the fact that a large output that currently being regulated by the Israeli government, was re-establish as "response" for this attack, don't you think that this fact makes the article about the attack notable enough? Benbaruch (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Keep There was the attack. Following that there was a manhunt which got coverage including his wife being arrested. He had a trial which got additional coverage. Then Israel military demolished his family home, which got coverage including the US State Department condemning it (a rare event).
The article needs work and additional sources, but I do think this incident and it's aftermath got sustained notice both within Israel but also around the globe. Searching using the name of the perpetrator is a good place to start for additional sources[1] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under scholarly sources, I found one book which doesn't just have a description of the attack but also discuss clashes and violence in response to Israel engaging in the manhunt[2] Bob drobbs (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm updating my vote to Strong Keep after reviewing the number of sources which covered this attack and it's aftermath.
And while WP:OTHER isn't usually the strongest argument, in this case if we start applying a not-policy definition of secondary source which some here are trying to use to justify the deletion of even articles where hundreds of news articles were written about an event over a period of years, then much of this site would have to be deleted. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd consider merge or redirect to an appropriate page, which is the level of treatment that this gets in the book above. To meet GNG, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. The newspaper coverage is primary, as is the state department rebuke. The book, Jewish Lives Matter has only a short entry that does not significantly describe the attack such that a wikipedia page can be written. The nature of the work shows why multiple sources are required. We are certainly not at a WP:N pass yet, and if we are to rely on this kind of sourcing to keep an article then systematic bias in our coverage is likely. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    > The newspaper coverage is primary...
    I'm not sure this understanding of secondary sources is correct.  Reading through it again, a newspaper journalist synthesizing facts regarding an incident seems sufficient to qualify as secondary:
    "A Secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources"
    Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources
    In which case, this incident got plenty of secondary source coverage over an extended period of time.
    -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment is meta. Which sources do you contest are secondary, and why? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, based on policy it seems that all that's required to be a secondary source is for someone at least one step removed from the event synthesizing facts about it. And for this story, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of examples over a period of years. Here are just a few of them:
In this Haaretz article about the conviction the journalist synthesized a bunch of related facts regarding this case.
https://archive.is/CzIV8
Here's an article which focuses on the demolition of his family's home, but also meets the metric of synthesizing facts:
https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/08/us-israel-palestinians-violence
Here's another one which condemns Rashida Tlaib for tweeting about the house demolition.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2021/07/11/antisemitic-congresswoman-rashida-tlaib-slammed-on-twitter-for-denouncing-demolition-of-palestinian-terrorists-home-failing-to-mention-his-victim/
The US embassy issuing a condemnation is a primary source. Tlaib tweeting about it is a primary source. But if any journalist writes about these things then that's a secondary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Let's look at each of these:
  1. The Haaretz article is a news report about sentencing of Muntasir Shalabi. This is a primary source. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS or any good book on historiography. It is a discursive primary source, and it reports the background, that is, the shooting, saying Shalabi, a U.S. citizen, was convicted of shooting the three victims from inside his car while they were waiting at a bus stop at the Tapuah junction in the northern West Bank. and later According to his indictment Shalabi fired from close range and stopped shooting when his gun malfunctioned and fled the scene. That's not SIGCOV, but notice carefully that "According to his indictment". The news source is reporting court documents. This is a primary source for this detail also. News reporting is a primary source, and does not count towards notability, and that is Wikipedia policy. Red XN
  2. The Euronews article is a news report of the demolition of his house. Again, this is reporting events, and adds reported detail of the background of the events. This is a primary source. Again, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Red XN
  3. The algemeiner: This is a news report of criticism of the demolition of Shalabi's home. It contains only this background on the topic of the article: Of course what Hamas lobbyist @RashidaTlaib omits to mention is fact that this home belonged to a Palestinian terrorist who murdered a Jewish Israeli man. That is not SIGCOV, and is a quotation in response to the criticism. It, too, is primary sourcing. Note that what we don't have is a source that has synthesised material here. We don't have an article that has examined the whole matter, and draw together reporting, and chosen to include this criticism, and examined its effects. Instead we have a news report that we have decided to include in the article. The synthesis is ours. Again, this is a discursive primary source, and does not count towards notability. Red XN
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're looking at Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS as the best or only place to determine what a secondary source. Above you rejected my argument as "meta", but have you looked at Wikipedia:SECONDARY which defines what a secondary source is.
It only requires a few things:
  • At least one step removed from an event
  • Contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas
And here's my understanding of the word "synthesis" in this context:
  • Combining information from multiple sources to create a new, cohesive understanding or argument
Do you have a different understanding of the word?
And is there any disagreement with the idea that the Haaretz journalist probably talked to multiple people and maybe reviewed multiple documents to put together their news report? Bob drobbs (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PRIMARYNEWS links you to the policy page. Now look on WP:SECONDARY, scroll up a couple of paragraphs, and read note d under WP:PRIMARY. These are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restricting participation to EC editors per WP:PIA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I noticed another editor saying that wikipedia is not news, and though that is true, that is not what this is about. A review of the sources in both English as well as Hebrew demonstrates clear notability per WP:GNG for this article to be kept. The article also references an event from 2021. This was and is a notable event that meets our standards for encyclopedic mention. Keep all around. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Bob Drobbs comments and further inquiry, my Strong Keep moves to Even stronger Keep. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi lijhgtn. You may only have one highlighted !vote per AfD. I am curious though: your !vote above was made at 15:26 yesterday, but you had !voted on a previous AfD just 2 minutes earlier, at 15:24. Did you do your WP:BEFORE review of the sourcing at some other time? Would you be willing to post up your source review? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I bolded text after the first and only !vote. Will it somehow count as a second one? If so, that was not my intention, I was simply bolding the second mention of "Strong Keep" and "Even Stronger Keep" for emphasis. I thought only your first bolded !vote was "counted" (and yes I know they are not simply votes and therefore it is not simply a matter of which "side" has the highest number of !votes on their side but rather which arguments are most based in policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, if I did something wrong, please ping me and let me know so that I come back to this thread and I will correct it. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for removing the additional bolding. It keeps things clearer for the closer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This did not receive any – let alone significant! – secondary source coverage over time and warrants deletion for that reason. (WP:NOTNEWS / WP:SIGCOV) Already covered in Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2021, besides. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comments above. Can you please clarify what your understanding of a secondary source is?
    Because it appears that between coverage of this shooting and coverage of the perpetrator/aftermath dozens if not hundreds of secondary sources gave significant coverage to this story. And to clarify my use of the word "significant" these weren't just passing mentions, these were are all news articles written specifically about the incident or things directly related to it's aftermath (manhunt, trial, home demolition) which IMO should be included in the scope of this article.
    As just one example, of countless examples, here is a secondary source giving coverage of the attack:
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/student-shot-in-west-bank-drive-by-shooting-dies-of-injuries/ Bob drobbs (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Times of Israel article is a news report of the death of Yehuda Guetta. The article is news reporting throughout. As above, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Such reports are primary sources occasioned by the event (this one is occasioned by the death of the victim). These are not secondary sources demonstrating notability nor WP:LASTING effect. Red XN Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      IMO Wikipedia:Secondary source seems like a better, and probably the definitive place, to try to get an understanding of what a secondary source is. Bob drobbs (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, scroll up a couple of paragraphs on that page and carefully read note d regarding what are primary sources. Per policy, these are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I did scroll up. it seems 100% clear that Times of Israel (and countless other sources) aren't a primary sources based on this definition:
      "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event..."
      But there's also this qualification:
      "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources..."
      I wasn't sure, so I had to look up how wikipedia defines "breaking news":
      "Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia" Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Breaking_news
      So it seems very clear that the only standard here is to treat news stories within 24 hours of an event with a large degree of skepticism, not that every single news article written within 6-12 months of an event is a primary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is just wikilawyering. Have another read of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You keep referring to WP:PRIMARYNEWS, but that page is just an opinion essay written by some editors:
      "This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community'"'
      By comparison, WP:SECONDARY is policy. Bob drobbs (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It is an explanatory essay explaining Wikipedia policy, and which, like all explanatory essays, has a higher level of consensus than someone trying to assert that a news source is only primary if it is within 24 hours of an event. It also links quite clearly to the policy. News reports are primary sources. It is not just Wikipedia saying so.

      Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources.[1]: 69 .

      Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      At any rate, WP:SECONDARY is very clear: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The ToI article provided does none of these things. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      News reports are primary sources
      Yes, some very academic-focused essays make this claim, but this is not wiki policy.
      There's literally a WP:In the news section featured at the top of the homepage which is written based on news reports. Bob drobbs (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Why does Wikipedia need to define what a secondary/primary source are? This is a real term and not something made up for the purpose of the project like WP:NOTABILITY. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It is wikipedia policy. See WP:PRIMARY and especially note d. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no secondary coverage, and yes news reports are primary sources: [3] Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Donnelly, Mark P.; Norton, Claire (2021). Doing history (2nd ed.). London New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9781138301559.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, isn't that when a "No consensus" close is appropriate? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was started on March 27. Is it standard practice to just relist into eternity until a super majority is presented? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
up to 3 relists are quite common where consensus remains unclear. Note that Liz said this is the final relist. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is 3 the maximum? Iljhgtn (talk) 15:02, 24 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. ✗plicit 23:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Az-Za'ayyem checkpoint shooting

Az-Za'ayyem checkpoint shooting (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)

No secondary coverage. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:37, 27 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

No Fly List Kids (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)

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]

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. WiinterU 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]
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

2025 Yokneam 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)

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]

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]
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]
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

Azawad conflict (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 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]

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]
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

2022 Gaziantep 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)

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]

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]
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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Terrorism&oldid=1282658952"