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

2025 al-Funduq shooting

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

Also nominating the following related pages:

These articles fail WP:GNG. The only coverage is WP:ROUTINE news reporting in the immediate aftermath of the incidents, with no indication of WP:SUSTAINED or WP:LASTING coverage. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and should not be the paper of record for every isolated act of violence, regardless of scale or tragedy, as part of broader conflagrations.

The presence of significant casualties is not, in itself, a criterion for notability under Wikipedia policy. Notability must be established through multiple, independent, and reliable sources that provide substantial coverage beyond mere event reporting. In these cases, such coverage is absent.

These nominations are being made in the interest of consistency and in light of WP:NPOV. Both Israeli and Palestinian-related events should be evaluated under the same criteria and to avoid selectively retaining articles based on the nationality of the victims.

By contrast, articles like 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi attack (Palestinian) and 2021 Tapuah Junction shooting (Israeli) meet notability due to broad and enduring media analysis and public discourse. These stand in stark contrast to the transient coverage seen in the articles nominated here and mirror the community's consensus to merge 2024 Tarqumiyah shooting (Israeli) and Shadia Abu Ghazala School corpses (Palestinian).

The nominated articles can be and should be merged into Timeline of the Gaza war. Longhornsg (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion of 2025 al-Funduq shooting, 29 October 2024 Beit Lahia airstrike, and October 2024 Deir al-Balah mosque bombing

Generally, per WP:LASTING, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."
The al-Funduq shooting was only 3 months ago, so it is still recent. The death of one of the perpetrators was also mentioned as recently as last week, so that seems to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage.
The Beit Lahia airstrike and Deir al-Balah bombing are both mentioned in South Africa's “Public dossier of openly available evidence on the State of Israel’s acts of genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, as of 4 February 2025” (although the latter is only in a footnote). That these events will be used as evidence in the genocide case makes them lasting. The events are also recent enough that it feels slightly over-zealous to delete.

Not WP:SIGCOV, mentioned in several of over 100 footnotes in a 220+ page legal document. Longhornsg (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage was already established through WP:DIVERSE coverage in WP:RS, which is enough per WP:NTEMP.

I think you are misinterpreting WP:ROUTINE. Per WP:NOTROUTINE, "if an article goes into detail about the event, it is not necessarily "routine" coverage." EvansHallBear (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Support deletion of 2024 Ra'anana attack as event has had not lasting or sustained coverage over the past year.~~ EvansHallBear (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me absurd to delete that one and not the others because unlike the others that one actually did get coverage again recently [1]. So I would oppose deleting just that one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that in the article so assumed no subsequent coverage. Should have looked slightly harder. I'm now opposed to all deletions. EvansHallBear (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per EVENT and NOTROUTINE. While it is a bit early for SUSTAINED, similar debates have shown that terroristic events get included in books and revisited in newspapers, reports (as above), and databases. Every such event gets included in the national database with ample information. While we have too much coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Enwiki, so in this sense I have sympathy for this nomination, these events pass the applicable guidelines. It is my observation that Israelis keep revisiting terror events in newspapers, books and reports. We should really create more coverage of all the rest. gidonb (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Starting to look a little like Trainwreckage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per EvansHallBear's comment, which you have not responded to. Easternsahara (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like it is suitable for keeping and relatively has enough sources.110 and 135 (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge all, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre - lack of significant ongoing coverage in secondary sources. Can and should be merged as recommended by nominator if not deleted. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree this is routine coverage. A lethal shooting attack on a bus and passing cars such as the one discussed in this article, is not considered "routine" under our policy because it is inherently unpredictable, violent, and has lasting national or international consequences, unlike scheduled or everyday events such as press conferences, sports matches, or local awards, which the policy provides as examples for routine events. Whizkin (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, all fail WP:NEVENT. Coverage is not WP:INDEPTH. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures

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

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of 35.139.154.158 (talk) who requested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AFD request - Terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures that this article be nominated for deletion. The supplied rationale is:

WP:CFORK of Tactics of terrorism. Collection of this as a distinct topic seems to be due to a single author, C. Flaherty, which not so coincidentally is rather similar to the username of this article's creator and primary contributor.

I am not offering an opinion at this time beyond noting the creator was user:CFlaherty, who has not edited since 2021. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This reminds me of a similar phenomenon for the Airport city and Aerotropolis and John D. Kasarda articles (see comments on the Talk pages of those articles). See also WP:NEOLOGISM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Closing admin, if you delete this article, please remember to delete Tactics, techniques, and procedures and Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, both of which redirect here. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tactics of terrorism. I don't think this article supports that this is an "essential concept" in counterterrorism but it does establish that this is a sometimes used synonym/subtopic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In perusing the sources a few do use this term but they seem to be published by the law enforcement agency where the author works, or are ebooks by think tanks that don't have Wikipedia articles. Googling though, the term is used fairly heavilly in law enforcement circles and better soruces pop right out. "Terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures" seems to be a specific term used in reliable sources in this field. Addressing the nominator's rationale, the authorship of the Wikipedia article in and of itself is not a reason for deletion. Self-promotion is a red flag for notability issues, but doesn't prove them by itself. I'd be okay with a merge/redirect to Tactics of terrorism if the sourcing for this longer term isn't deemed sufficient. --Here2rewrite (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TTPs are a well-established concept and the writeup is very decent. Judging by the title one might be concerned there would be overlap with the above mentioned article, yet judging by the content this isn't the case. gidonb (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. gidonb (talk) 11:41, 21 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!} 22:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals