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

2019 Racine synagogue vandalism

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE, of a legal nature, not analytical, and not sustained. Vandalism is also not a kind of crime that, in most cases, results in notability proving coverage. Merge into The Base (hate group)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Judaism, Michigan, and Wisconsin. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it appears to have some coverage which does not seem routine to me, if this is routine, that is pretty tragic. [Far right network orchestrated synagogue attacks, FBI says][1][2][3] Andre🚐 03:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's crediting that to the FBI, there is no unique analysis in any of those articles, and it's also only two months later, except for routine legal proceedings, WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Antisemitic vandalism is very common. It making the news is also very common. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FBI saying it was orchestrated goes to it not being run-of-the-mill hate vandalism. It also made it into this book and this one. These articles [4], [5] and this [6] show that it kept getting coverage over time for whatever reason. Andre🚐 03:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How long is the book coverage, and what is it in the context of? It won't load for me. The forward article is trial stuff and the other two are local. They're sustained though so that's a little better. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page 314 of Koehler (which is Cambridge University Press) and page 238 of Payne, the former cites the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel from 2020, the latter cites the Justice Department website press release. I cannot see the whole page just a snippet, but I can check to see if those books are kicking around a library or any other way to read them in full to read the surrounding context, but it is enough for me already that for 3-4 years this series of events is being covered somehow. I agree the Forward is a trial article but based on the content of it, plus the linked Ynet article that they cite which is dead for me right now but I will try to track down, I wouldn't call it WP:ROUTINE which if you read is about run-of-the-mill events like scheduled events or usually I think of product announcements. It does not automatically say all trial articles are routine coverage. Standard crime coverage would be routine like maybe something like this: [7] When the FBI is saying it is an orchestrated domestic terrorist group and people are using it as an example of an extremism trend in the US that is very not routine in my view. Andre🚐 03:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trial coverage is almost always... well, maybe routine isn't the right word, but primary? It contains no analysis and is uniformly just repeating the legal arguments. In cases where the trial is analyzed or the crime that is another thing, but that does not seem to be happening here. If you see more of what is in the books ping me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given these sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a legitimate SPINOFF of The Base (hate_group)#Anti-Semitic activities. Coverage isn't routine at all. This doesn't mean that there is no problem with the article. There is. A week before the nomination it was moved from 2019 synagogue vandalism to its current name without debate. This move should be undone, unless a better target is found. gidonb (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand why you say the move should be undone. Undiscussed moves are allowed, and the old name was terrible. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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