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.

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]

Proposals