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

Bangladesh Mosque Mission

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

Is there really any need for a separate article just to write this little? It doesn’t meet the notability criteria at all. At most, it can be attached to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. Somajyoti ✉ 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Terrorism, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, first of all, it is a registered NGO and relates to WP:Three, it has these patricular sources that you should check, or you can add sources to establish notability and search on the internet, why didn't you check or if you did check, atleast say so. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 7:28 AM, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
And also, It's not "so little", please explain how large does the article have to be, I'll find the sources and add it. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 7:32 AM, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Being "short" is not grounds for deletion. That is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. If by "it can be attached" to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami you mean it can be merged there, then why is it nominated for deletion? For anyone searching for sources, the more common name is probably "Bangladesh Masjid Mission". Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Worldbruce's statement is correct, being short is not a reason for deletion, like if It's short, then why don't you expand the page? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like how I first check and fix pages and search until deciding a different approach, You should try to first search or use a different approach. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if you read WP:AfD and this page can definitely be improved, AfD is not always the solution, editing it and adding information may make it suitable to stay as a separate article on Wikipedia. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This initiative is widely coverage in Bengali language. And Its have significant social contribution. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 00:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is coverage of this in the Bengali language or any other language, add text supported by references from that language to the article so that it meets the notability criteria. It doesn’t matter what kind of social contribution it has. I think it is necessary to meet the notability criteria by using text supported by reliable sources. Somajyoti ✉ 08:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Somajyoti: It doesn't work that way. See WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXISTS. This discussion is based on existing sources even if they are not used in the article. MarioGom (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From what I can see in the cited sources, there's very little coverage of the Bangladesh Mosque Mission. For example, translating the first source yields no more than a few lines of relevant information: "He said these things in his speech as the chief guest at the day-long Imam training workshop organized by Bangladesh Mosque Mission, Chittagong North District." If there isn't any source that's entirely or mostly focused on the 'Bangladesh Mosque Mission', I'll lean towards ~~delete~~. PS: Translating the other sources gives a similar impression -- just irrelevant passing mentions. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striked double vote. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References no. 2, 5, and 9 used here -- namely Bangla Tribune, Daily Sun (Bangladesh), and Bangla Tribune respectively -- may be considered reliable in the context of Bangladesh, excluding the rest. Somajyoti ✉ 15:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are many sources, looking at one and then saying its not enough to establish notability is absolute bogus, there are several in-depth sources and The Daily Ittefaq, Daily Sun, Bangla Tribune are reliable sources and others too, thus it passes, it is also a registered NGO and plays a important role in social reform, it left a impact and passes WP:GNG thus it deserves a separate article plus the article is not even 2 months old now, like give some time for improvement, Somajyoti and Maniacal ! Paradoxical! plus how is it not relevant? you have failed to explain, explain properly, Somajyoti also, you should explain your reason. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be kept per WP:N, WP:NEXIST and etc. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 redirect‎ to 2025 Pahalgam attack#Reactions. A section at the target article already exists; content can be merged from page history if desired. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2025 Pahalgam attack

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

Half of this new article duplicates the reactions section of 2025 Pahalgam attack, the other half consists of boilerplate condolence tweets that editors have consistently removed from 2025 Pahalgam attack as non-notable. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support; Transfer it as a subsection under 2025 Pahalgam attack RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i agree 49.36.235.126 (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to the main article about the attack. I don't see quite enough for a stand-alone article on the reactions. Oaktree b (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support; most of the info given is already there in the original attack article and it does not need to be a standalone article. Pikchaku (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is meeting with WP:GNG and getting many views. As the events progresses the article is informing us with the Reactions from all over the world. Also this is edited by many editors and there is nothing to delete it. A number of countries send condolences and react to the event and this article created for the only reactions. 2025 Pahalgam attack article is getting many words so the this article needs to be stand alone. Misopatam (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Jammu and Kashmir. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the main 2025 Pahalgam attack page is only ~1800 words, and per readability guideline at the ~10,000 mark we should think about splitting up. The event was only a few days ago, having a separate article for reactions seems like an unnecessary content fork. Zzz plant (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 Pahalgam attack - unnecessary WP:CFORK and per WP:PAGEDECIDE Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2025 Pahalgam attack as an unnecessary SPINOFF. Articles are too small to split. Notability is irrelevant to this question. gidonb (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not short and it is currently in editing and expanding time by time as the event progresses. Misopatam (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My merge recommendation is without prejudice against having a similar article in due time. Your contributions are highly appreciated! gidonb (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Reactions section of the 2025 Pahalgam attack. Making a whole article on just the reactions to this attack is unnecessary and undue EarthDude (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 Pahalgam attack#Reactions: Concur with nominator, article is largely duplicative SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: It is part of the 2025 Pahalgam attack and it is redundant to keep a separate article for reactions. Better to merge it in the reactions section of that article.
Merge: but minus the WP:QUOTEFARM boilerplate international reactions.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2025 Pahalgam attack#Reactions Ahammed Saad (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This could be something similar to the International reactions to the Gaza war article, multiple demonstrations across the world have happened with international condemnation and reactions from non-state organizations, this should documented either here or on the main article. Xoocit (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion to keep article is great. Misopatam (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge we should not have "reactions to" an article on anything, unless it is sourced to secondary sources and not breaking news reports. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per PARAKANYAA and various others. Polygnotus (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect:To 2025 Pahalgam attack#Reactions Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 10:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per boilerplate and WP:ROUTINE. Keep if one leader is seen dancing over the tragedy. Borgenland (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2025 Pahalgam attack. Reactions do not warrant a separate page without reliable secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I support merging it with 2025 Pahalgam attack. There is already a "Reactions" Section on that article and it is very common for articles to have reactions sections. It is not common for there to be an entire page dedicated to reactions. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 Pahalgam attack#Reactions, this page has some more information to put into the former. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2025 Pahalgam attack, no need for a separate page. Frank Ken (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 2025 Pahalgam attack. Agreed that a separate article isn't necessary since these info can be placed under one page inside a subsection. Galaxybeing (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 Pahalgam attack.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Unnecessary content fork; parent page has relevant section, doesn't justify split. TheWikiholic (talk) 06:25, 3 May 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 01:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ghuraba training camp

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

War on terrorism WP:CRUFT by a now WP:CBANed editor. Egregious failure of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and utterly lacks focused WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Qaeda safe houses, Kabul, which the community reached consensus to delete. Longhornsg (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following related pages that meet the same deletion criteria:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Terrorism, Afghanistan, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable, it is impossible to improve any of these articles to a satisfactory state. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (non notable topic, I could only find passing mentions in a few books such as this and this, nothing else). ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:40, 1 May 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.

2017 Hurghada attack

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

Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage is in the immediate days after the attack, no WP:LASTING or WP:SUSTAINED that establish WP:GNG. Open to an appropriate merge target. Longhornsg (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, Egypt, Armenia, Czech Republic, and Germany. Longhornsg (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt#Red Sea resort attacks (2016–17), where it is mentioned. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt#Red Sea resort attacks (2016–17) per PARAKANYAA. I can't find any sustained coverage to indicate that this passes WP:NEVENT either. The suggested redirect seems appropriate. MCE89 (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Once again, the consensus leans towards keep with a note to nominator about the incomplete nomination, hence a procedural keep. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the September 11 attacks (H–N)

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

Fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL and is just a indiscriminate list of victims. E_F⁵ 15:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment EF5, any particular reason you're only nominating H-N and not the two other lists on the same subject? Departure– (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Departure–, I'm not sure how to do that. — E_F⁵ 16:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BUNDLE has instructions on exactly this. Though, I'm less than sure how it'll go now that a discussion has begun - perhaps withdraw for now and make your bundled nomination? Departure– (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, regardless of the specific 9/11 list being nominated, per last AfD discussion. Nothing much has changed. The list clearly passes NLIST. People always say NOTMEMORIAL when it doesn't apply, but that only applies when the topic itself isn't notable and people add it anyway. If the topic is notable, all NOTMEMORIAL says is:

Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements

The notability requirement for the list is satisfied, as shown extensively in the last AfD, so notmemorial becomes moot.

As for INDISCRIMINATE, that guideline says an article should not be summary only descriptions of works, lyrics databases, exhaustive logs of software updates, or unexplained statistics. The first three clearly do not apply, and I don't think the fourth one does because you could make a clear lead about a list of the 9/11 victims and what these people have in common is clearly explained. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this was made in response to the nominator's article of a similar kind getting AfD'd, and while I really do understand the frustration of what is seen as inconsistent enforcement, I do think there is a difference here in the quality of the sourcing per NLIST which is much more clearly evidenced here. The sourcing on 9/11 victims as a group is comparatively much much more significant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA, indeed it was. I saw that going under and immediately this article came to mind. Please do keep in mind WP:FOC, though. — E_F⁵ 17:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Terrorism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous AfD was closed as Keep, which I think was a mistake. The debate was pretty evenly divided; at best, it was a "No consensus," not "Keep." Angryapathy (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for now, as I think all three of the "victims" articles should be discussed together. As to concerns mentioned above, it should be noted that the previous AfD for this topic resulted in a pretty clear consensus that the topic meets WP:LISTN; while numerically there were 11 delete !votes and 16 keep !votes, it seems like the LISTN arguments were more persuasive to the closing admin per WP:NOTVOTE.
However, I'll reiterate what I said in the previous AfD. This list (and the other two) should probably be merged, and trimmed to link only to notable people. Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL (in the literal sense - the National September 11 Memorial & Museum is literally a memorial and we don't need to copy every name from the 9/11 Memorial), we shouldn't list all the non-notable people who died here. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AFD, where nom's points were thoroughly rejected, and procedural keep as a partial nomination out of context. Can we please AfD a little less and concentrate more on the article space? I hold that I can support both keep and procedural keep as both routes are applicable and lead to the same outcome. gidonb (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides the procedural-ness, not seeing a compelling argument that wasn't already shot down in the previous AfD. Not memorial doesn't apply here as the list is notable. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 06:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somajyoti ✉ 07:30, 26 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 redirect‎ to Al-Qaeda safe house. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaeda guest houses, Faisalabad

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

Following the successful Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Qaeda safe houses, Kabul, nominating related articles that fails the same criteria. Random hodgepodge of references to random locations. Fails WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and utterly lacks focused WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:RS. Longhornsg (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Pakistan, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research. Much of the sourcing is from the files of the US Department of Defense. User Geo Swan who created these, is permanently banned by the community, from editing the English Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Agree with the above rationale for deletion...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to al-Qaeda safe house as WP:ATD. Gheus (talk) 07:50, 28 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 Foreign relations of Hezbollah#European Union. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah drone smuggling investigation (2024–2025)

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

WP:NOTNEWS, lack of significant coverage for WP:GNG, does not seem to have enduring significance WP:EVENTCRIT – we don't have articles for every international policing operation and the "European network" is alleged and unnamed. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lebanon. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hezbollah foreign relations (or another article). TurboSuperA+_(connect) 17:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah military activities is the more appropriate merge target. Longhornsg (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Foreign relations of Hezbollah#European Union. Came to the same conclusion as User:TurboSuperA+. Yes, it is mentioned elsewhere yet that structure may not be right and is better not expanded. The target should be expanded with this information. gidonb (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is to merge, but three different targets have been proposed. Any preference?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dclemens1971, Turbo's redirect is to a redirect that leads to the same place as mine. I also quote them and specified to the subchapter. No space between us. Longhornsg has a different merge preference yet AfDd to delete. After a redirect was suggested they suggested a different target, possibly in a what-if structure. I eluded to the other options in my answer. gidonb (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:12, 2 May 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 2025 French prison attacks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DDPF

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

Tagged for speedy deletion by Jules* with the reason:

original research / not verifiable. Sources do not say that DDPF is a terrorist group, we don't even know if a such group really exists (sources only talks about a Telegram group and police is not sure of anything about it. See Le Monde

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, the related page on attacks carried by this group shows a substantial number of references. First, I want to emphasize that Jules* removed the mention of anarchism as the main lead pursued by French authorities—even though this claim is backed by two sources in the specific article about the attacks. A simple Google search would have confirmed this. Here are the two articles: (1) (2).

Regarding DDPF, the user selectively picked sources and provided only one, Le Monde, which questions whether the attacks are coordinated and examines the links between the Telegram channel claiming responsibility (and providing close-up images/videos of the attacks—clearly from people with direct access I should say) and the actual assaults. Let me clarify: I extensively research terrorism in general and anarchist terrorism in particular, and such practices are entirely typical of 21st-century terrorist groups. The most obvious example that comes to mind is Al-Qaeda or ISIS’s online recruitment and incitement campaigns during the 2000s and 2010s. Whenever radicalized individuals carry out attacks and claim them in the group’s name, they are considered part of it—which is logical, as this is one of the primary forms of early-21st-century terrorism, sometimes overlapping with lone-wolf attacks but not always. Here, the only precise witness accounts describe multiple assailants (e.g., people in a car or hooded figures setting fire to targets)—clearly not individual acts. So, as I told Jules*, I don’t see why, even if the investigation eventually concludes (which is possible) that this isn’t an anarchist group, we couldn’t mention it as the main lead as it is the main lead so far.

The reality is that most sources do refer to it as a group—especially since the terrorist group and the Telegram channel share the same name. We’re likely dealing with a hardcore nucleus that carried out some attacks and is now trying to incite others (e.g., people linked to prisons—the only arrested suspect so far is a former inmate) to follow suit. This is a classic strategy of modern terrorism (and not even just modern—terrorism in general).

As for the claim that the Telegram channel is separate from the group (which they changed in the introduction also), frankly, I think the user deliberately cherry-picked an isolated this source. Plenty of others clearly treat it as a group—here’s a sample.(3)(4)(5)(6 in English)

Some speak of it as a 'movement', such as Le Figaro (6)

In fact, the position of the Guardian (7) describing it as a group based on the Telegram channel to communicate (meaning their main modus operandi known so far is to use that homonymous channel to coordinate, incite and mediatize their actions) seems to be the fairest one, and probably where the inquiry will go towards, but don't know yet.

But in any case, I don't see why she would delete the page ; either it's a group, a movement or a slogan anti-prison if it's ultimately decided (which is very dubious and unprobable) ; in any case it would be usable here and not a non-deserving subject. Look at the amount of sources we are discussing the subject while it's still going on, I feel like it kinda shows that it's a big subject, and I mean it's a current event, so the page will follow it's usual temporality and follow the sources as they come through ; deleting seems clearly wrong regarding the amount of sources avalaible online. Also I should note that Jules* is admin on the FR:WP and I won't repeat the accusations I made against them in the talk page of DDPF but the FR:WP admin team deleted this page for 'Manifest vandalism' while I was sleeping without opening a single discussion on it - and I feel very attacked by this categorization of what I did, which is clearly not vandalism but instead trying to do subjects I like, and you know I like terrorism-related subjects since I did hundred of pages regarding that (in this account and this one, so as not to fool anyone) ; I spent time trying to improve the FR:WP on that matter, and I still engage there while I'm being harassed, etc and this is how they act and how they categorize my edits. Do you really think it's 'Manifest vandalism' ? I feel like it was maybe rushed, but you know me, you say it to me on my talk page and I add sources and I'm a cyclical dude, I would have come back to the page to add sources over time, like I always do, Jules*. Anyways, yes, that's it, delete it if you want but it's not deserved by the amount of sources and it's more of a revealer of the atmosphere I feel like against me on FR:WP, where everyone is against me and hates my guts, basically. But it's probably deserved, hey, strange that in EN:WP it's not the same at all. Aristoxène (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History, or God, or human consciousness or whatever people believe in will judge. I just feel like I'm being systematically attacked since I criticized rape culture there and harassment targetting me and the feminist project and their administration management of the issues. Since then, it's only hostility and them hating my guts and I'm the worst dude ever. So I'm sorry to feel that this is in the same process but I feel it's the same dynamic ; and it's personal ok but the attacks seem personal too and often by the same people. Aristoxène (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After some thinking, I should say that I don't have the whole time of the world, so like I need to improve Rosalie Soubère and other pages for a project and do stuff IRL, so I'm sorry but I will drop this issue, do what you want with the page, it should stay, but I won't engage anymore with it or any related subjects, either here or in the FR:WP, it's ok, they will do better. I remove them from my Watchlist and I mute Jules* and I thank you all for the choice you will make, I'm sure it will be the right one. I won't be harassed like this, it's just work I did that goes into the bin and me not having the satisfaction of shaping the page I liked creating as it goes forward and we learn more about it, RIP. Aristoxène (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I just feel like I'm being systematically attacked since I criticized rape culture there and harassment targetting me and the feminist project and their administration management of the issues." This has nothing to do with the current matter: I never met you on fr-wp before and did not even know you name until today. And it has everything to with you writing things that are not in sources. — Jules* ^talk 22:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: DDPF is obviously notable, there are dozens of reliable sources about it. Also, it definitely exist, people are literally commiting terror attacks in France in the name of this group and spray painting its name on the walls. See [1] for proof WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Terrorism, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2025 French prison attacks. Regardless of what constitutes the DDPF, the reliable sources above only appear to discuss the group in relation to these attacks, not as independently notable. It would be best, then, to cover DDPF in the context of the attacks, and if there are additional sources about the DDPF in isolation (separate from the attacks) in the future, it can always split out to an independent article in summary style. Also noting that most sources unfurl the acronym as "Défense des droits des prisonniers français" not just "Droit des prisonniers français". And as a side note about personal attacks, every language Wikipedia is administered differently, but bringing an article to AfD discussion is foremost an opportunity to talk about the sources for the subject so I'd try not to view it as a personal judgment on the article's editors. czar 01:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2025 French prison attacks. It doesn't appear that the Telegram group is independently notable as a standalone topic outside the context of the prison attacks. Including this content in the larger article improves the encyclopedic coverage of both. Longhornsg (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This acronym may refer to a terrorist group or to an action by the French far left against prisons. The action is under investigation and will probably be followed up in the near future. Let's keep a trace of it, even if it's a pity that it has been removed from wiki:fr, not by the community but by the sole will of its administrators. Sg7438 (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 French prison attacks. Coverage is limited to mentions in relation to the 2025 French prison attacks. No standalone notability demonstrated or argued in this discussion. Yue🌙 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 French prison attacks, per above. Whether or not this group exists, it's pretty clear that it is not independently notable outside of the prison attacks being committed. Per WP:NORG, I don't think there's any need for this to be a separate article, at least not based on the current coverage in sources. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 French prison attacks. Same concerns as above, yet not sure anything is missing at the target. It all looks very similar to me. We should respect our merge team's limited people and time resources. gidonb (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, merge or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to 2025 French prison attacks. The information currently provided does not show that DDPF is more than just a telegram group. Whether it is the name of a more organized (or even anarchical) movement or just a political statement, it is still only notable as part of the events at the French prisons. Bkissin (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 2025 French prison attacks. It's still not clear if it's an organized group or a much more protean movement. Various sources published different hypothesis. See for example : the PNAT called the Telegram channel a "group" but admitted they know very little about it, while an article in Le Monde also mentioned hypothetical opportunistic ultra-leftists, and Franceinfo quoted a message on the Telegram channel that calls it a "movement". El Comandante (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per the arguments above. The subject is clearly in the media discussions with no clear distinction on their ideology apart from being involved in activities against peace and the law. Clear redirect to the related article with what the subject is involved in or known for. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:37, 30 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.

Proposals