Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic terrorism

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 no consensus. While there is some doubt on how the sourcing is used on this context, there wasn't much further commenting on it, thus the result. Secret ^account 05:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economic terrorism

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

Article does not provide the sources to establish the notability of "economic terrorism." I searched around with Google and most of the sources that use the expression seem to be conspiracy type websites and books. I am sure there could be instances of actions which could be called "economic terrorism", but there does not seem to be a consistent definition of what exactly that is in the mainstream. Borock (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Google Scholar search shows academic use of the term. Yes, the Google search shows a lot of polemical use of the term, but "economic terrorism" is clearly used in academic and policy work. The article could use improvement, but it meets notability criteria.--Bkwillwm (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Scholar does look better. I still get the feeling that the sources are mainly talking about things that might happen, not something that can be pinned down in the here and now. Borock (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think the concept is rather vague in most sources indicated above, many of which are books of low (or no) academic quality (one is a book accusing the IMF of 'economic terrorism'), but there should probably be an article on it nonetheless. 188.26.163.111 (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is there a single reliable source with the substantive content that would demonstrate notability? Aside from polemicals, the earliest mention of the term I find is 1964 in JSTOR 2092127, but I can't read it in full right now. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Bkwillwm points out, Google Scholar search points to a large number of papers using this term. I believe the search results can be mined for sources. LK (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator implied these are just two words that different writers use together, often effectively, to make a point. What the point is depends on the author, or maybe also the audience. Please check out the article terrorism. Most, if not all, the examples of "economic terrorism" given in the sources are not violent and are not intended to terrorize anyone. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are a number of books that define and discuss the term/phrase in some detail, including references to Economic Terrorism taskforces/groups specifically established to counter this sort of activity. I would point to this, this and this as a start. There are a number of others. There are also a number of books that discuss the counter-meaning/alternate meaning (use of the phrase by left wing groups to describe corporate actions) like this and this. There are a number of others in this category too. There's definitely "terrorism with an economic impact" version and a "conspiracies about corporations terrorising communities" version. But I think there's probably enough to adequately define the different contexts in which the phrase is used and then build an article on that basis. Stalwart111 01:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel that in the future someone must do some original research to clarify the meaning of it but, as of now, the term exists and it is notable. What we need is to keep the article watched, and clean it as much as we can until experts pull out a good definition.--Forich (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is more or less a non-notable neologism as it sits. Governments have conducted covert efforts to create economic destabilization in opponent regimes, but I don't think that meets the definition of "terrorism," nor do I think this is a term for that in common use. Similarly terrorists might target economic targets in an effort to destabilize economies, but we don't have civilian terrorism, corporate terrorism, transportation network terrorism, etc. nor should we. That's sort of an OTHERSTUFF argument, but I think it's a good enough point. We shouldn't try creating an encyclopedic dictionary definition here out of whole cloth. Just because a phrase has been used doesn't mean it is an encyclopedic topic. My opinion, anyway. Redirect to Terrorism. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- an article to expand on a certainly notable topic.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2013 (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.