Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch

List of Terrorism deletion discussions

[edit]

2005 El Mreiti base attack

[edit]
2005 El Mreiti base attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Militants attacked a military base during a 20-year insurgency. WP:NOTNEWS. Selectively merge to Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present) and redirect there. Longhornsg (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum

[edit]
1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly WP:PRIMARY sourcing, and a clear Wikipedia:POVFORK of the Civilization Jihad redirect. Not much reliable secondary sourcing. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I think you're right that this doesn't warrant inclusion as a separate article. Some parts need to be removed, as they clash with the line of reasoning in Frank J. Gaffney Jr. and make some vague claims that border on sensationalism. It's presence as a separate article seems to be skewed towards the implication that this was of greater prominence or impact than it actually was, which goes against WP:NPOV. It would thus need to be changed to account.
Best,
CSGinger14 (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
disclaimer, i've made a post advertising this also on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Pushing_of_Civilization_Jihad_conspiracy_theory_by_@Boutboul User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure I agree that there's "not much reliable secondary sourcing." There are plenty of google books hits, for instance Citizen Islam. The Future of Muslim Integration in the West, p. 101. or The Muslim Brotherhood in America, p. 10. Alaexis¿question? 11:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first includes about two references to the memo according to google books, passing reference cannot determine notability.
Second source is Lorenzo G. Vidino is called someone who pushes islamaphobic theories and disinformation acording to our own wikiledia article. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Baran discusses the memo in some detail, it's one of the major primary sources in the Islamists’ Bottom-Up Tactics in the United States chapter (pp. 101-104).
As to the second source, it's published by the George Washington University. As the wikipedia article makes clear, his work received both acclaim and criticism which is normal for a scholar. Alaexis¿question? 15:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find that book in Google books or shopping. Doug Weller talk 16:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as for the second source, did you see that " Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative has criticized Vidino, , saying that he "promotes conspiracy theories about the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe and the United States" that lead to the criminalization of Muslim civil society." Clearly not a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For some context, the original article was written by Shlomit Aharoni Lir, the author of the "The Bias Against Israel on Wikipedia" report for the World Jewish Congress, in the Hebrew Wikipedia. That was translated to French by user Princepouf who was subsequently blocked for... let's call it the kind over-enthusiasm that is relatively common in this topic area. The French version has now been translated to English. The original article contained errors and shortcomings. These survived their journey from Hebrew to French to English. I have no view on whether the article should be deleted, merged or retained, but if it is retained it should probably be rewritten from scratch to ensure that it meets our standards rather than the original author's standards. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • And let me document here, for the record, an error Shlomit Aharoni Lir made. They included Students for Justice in Palestine in the list and labeled it with 'Hamas'. That is a very odd thing to do given that it was not in the list they cited in the primary source. That misinformation made its way to French Wikipedia and then to English Wikipedia. Fortunately, Boutboul has cleaned up the list. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm a noob here so if you can please comment on whether I'm using this forum in the correct way or not. From my own research I can see that the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum was a key piece of evidence in U.S. v Holy Land Foundation trial [1]. it represents the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan for the United States, I believe a separate value might be needed in order to detail its importance and how it has been used over the years, such as in this testimony: [2] --Nordinha (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC) strike through WP:ARBECR Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article and this deletion discussion are covered by ARBECR. Since your account is not extendedconfirmed the only thing you can do is post edit requests on the article's talk page that follow the WP:EDITXY guidelines. You can't edit the article and you can't participate in consensus forming discussions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commenthttps://x.com/WikiBias2024/status/1982751804040306943 Seems more folks are to be directed here soon User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Smells like LLM too. ←Metallurgist (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The 1991 memorandum is a standalone topic: it was entered in the Holy Land Foundation case, and the Fifth Circuit upheld admission of the document set that includes it. It has mainstream public coverage (Dallas Morning News trial reporting[3]; analysis in The New Yorker[4]) and academic or para-academic coverage (e.g., Vidino’s work and GWU Program on Extremism papers citing the memo). Wikipedia should summarize significant views with attribution, not take sides. Improve wording on the talk page rather than removing sourced content. Also note that commentators on all sides have ties that should be disclosed (e.g., Lorenzo Vidino’s consulting via Alp Services for UAE interests; Bridge Initiative housed at Georgetown and sponsored by the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center). Finally, merging into Frank Gaffney makes no sense: it is a biography of an activist, while this subject is a standalone document with its own scope, and merging would create a scope mismatch and undue weight.Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The New Yorker article says of the document (bolding added by me):
"Virtually all the alarm over the coming Islamic takeover and the spread of Sharia law can be traced back to an old document of questionable authority and relevance, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” Dated May 22, 1991, it was found in 2004 by the F.B.I., buried in one of a large number of boxes uncovered during a search of a house in northern Virginia. (I reported on the discovery and the use of the document for my book “Freedom of Speech: Mightier than the Sword.”) It is cited on numerous Web sites, and in articles, videos, and training materials, which quote one another in circular arguments. Its illusion of importance was enhanced by federal prosecutors, who included it in a trove of documents introduced into evidence in the 2007 trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a charitable organization ultimately convicted of sending money to Hamas.
The memo, however, is far from probative. It was never subjected to an adversarial test of its authenticity or significance. Examined closely, it does not stand up as an authoritative prescription for action. Rather, it appears to have been written as a plea to the Muslim Brotherhood leadership for action, by an author we know little about, Mohamed Akram. He is listed elsewhere as a secretary in the Brotherhood, but he writes in the tone of an underling. Islam watchers do not quote his appeal that the recipients “not rush to throw these papers away due to your many occupations and worries. All that I’m asking of you is to read them and to comment on them.” These lines reveal the memo as a mere proposal, now twenty-four years old. No other copies have come to light." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
as is, keeping even half of what is in this article, and the redirect link to Civilization Jihad, or even including info from the other articles here would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. we should not keep folks who are essentially considered centerpieces of the islamaphobia movement with equal regards to academics who heavily dispute the docs. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivially fails the WP:GNG; the article is overwhelmingly cited to non-independent primary sources and a single non-WP:RS report by Lorenzo G. Vidino, who is at the absolute bare minimum not an WP:INDEPENDENT source when it comes to the Muslim Brotherhood (from his article, According to Thijl Sunier, professor at the Free University of Amsterdam, although Vidino claims to be an independent scholar, leaked documents show that he was paid by a private intelligence service to scientifically substantiate allegations against the Muslim Brotherhood.) The only other sources people seem to be able to dig up are passing mentions. Even if that weren't the case, the level of extreme focus given to a single report here is unreasonable; it's unlikely to be WP:DUE in any case. A single sentence summarizing Vidino's views might be defensible on Muslim Brotherhood (although I'd want to take things to RSN if we can't find additional coverage, since I don't think the report passes WP:RS), but devoting an entire article to a single report he wrote, as we functionally are now, is not appropriate. EDIT: I made some effort to clean up the sources in order to get a more clear look at what's actually usable. Most of the sources were different links to the memorandum itself; one was incredibly vague but I finally tracked it down; it appears to have been an article by the Center for Security Policy (The Center for Security Policy (CSP) is a US far-right,[5][6] anti-Muslim,[7][8] Washington, D.C.–based think tank), which is clearly not an WP:RS. One of the external links was also to a doctoral thesis, which wouldn't be a good sources anyway per WP:THESIS but also doesn't seem to have mentioned the memorandum or its author as far as I can tell? It really does seem like Vidino is the sole non-primary source for the entire article, which all else aside means it fails the WP:GNG even before we get to the problems with that source. --Aquillion (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – there are plenty of secondary sources out there, including NYTimes, and having copies of actual documents is not a reason to delete an article as important as this one, if for no other reason than its historical significance. Atsme 💬 📧 23:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The document has no historical significance. What is that NYT source you shared? It's not an article and it appears to be just the document itself with a one paragraph intro. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a vote on the merits of the document, but whether it meets WP:GNG. Use in conspiracy theories aside, the document routinely cited by WP:RS as a key document driving the sustained (serious) policy discussion in the United States around the Muslim Brotherhood: ABC, NPR, Washington Post, The New Yorker, Congressional testimony. It's notable, but should be written in the proper context. Longhornsg (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge/redirect to Frank Gaffney#Civilization Jihad Redirect to Muslim Brotherhood#United States (see below) per WP:PAGEDECIDE, where the topic is already mentioned with appropriate accuracy and detail. The only source provided thus far that contains significant coverage of this topic is the New York Post article, explains why this document is of questionable reliability and explains it in the broader context of anti-Islam movements. It might also fit at Counter-jihad, since the invocation of this document seems to be explicitly linked to anti-Islamic groups promoting conspiracy theories. The congressional testimony provided by Longhornsg is by Zuhdi Jasser, who "has been described as a part of the counter-jihad movement". The article as it currently stands has significant issues with WP:SOAP, so there is insufficient reason for this to remain a standalone article vs selectively merging any encyclopedic content to the coverage at Civilization Jihad. Katzrockso (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also coverage of this document at Muslim Brotherhood#United States, where is discussed in more extensive detail. I think this redirect would serve readers better than the proposed Civilization Jihad one, and there is no important and substantive content from this article to merge there, so I am changing my !vote to redirect. Katzrockso (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I didn't vote on whether the document has merit or whether its propagators are experts. Just that it meets WP:GNG. And notable people talking about it to the U.S. Congress adds to the notability. Longhornsg (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, however, notability is not a guarantee for a page. If a topic is better covered better at another article, then there isn't a need to create another article. I don't think there is any encyclopedic content in 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum that doesn't already exist at Muslim Brotherhood#United States, which is covered 1) more accurately 2) in the greater context of the actions of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States broadly & internationally. From WP:PAGEDECIDE; "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page". Something with marginable notability like this is better covered in context at the article that already discusses it!
    I was indicating that I'm not sure that the congressional testimony is a reliable source, and as such can't contribute to WP:GNG. Katzrockso (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per longhornsg. POV pushing is bad, but that doesnt mean the article is. POV scrubbing is also bad. Needs work as others have mentioned. ←Metallurgist (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aquillion as subject lacks WP:SIGCOV. With the exception of the Vidino source, the rest of the handful of references provided only reference the memo briefly. EvansHallBear (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @EvansHallBear, the discussion of the document in Baran's Citizen Islam isn't brief. Alaexis¿question? 15:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Muslim Brotherhood. The references to the memorandum cited as justification for a standalone article consist mainly of brief mentions in news coverage and primary documents, which are trivial and lack sustained coverage. The secondary sources are largely fringe, far-right, Islamophobic conspiracy theorists (per RS) and therefore do not meet the standards required by WP:GNG and WP:RS. I also do not see why the FBI transcript of the Palestine Committee summit is included, why it is considered relevant to the scope of the article, or why it is presented in wiki voice as evidence of a "Hamas support network". The only source asserting this appears to be an allegation by the US government, which is insufficient for us to treat it as fact. This is replicated thorough the article with other statements, failing for example WP:TERRORIST. Every reference to Hamas in the article is either unsourced or incorrectly sourced. The most frequently cited materials are the memorandum itself, which is a WP:PRIMARY source, and the analysis by Vidino, who, as Aquillion has already noted, raises his own reliability concerns. Taken together, these issues show that the topic does not meet the threshold for a standalone article. As Katzrockso also noted, the subject is already discussed in the Muslim Brotherhood article, where it is contextually appropriate, so I would support redirecting this page to the relevant section there. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or if we must, redirect). The sources we use for the article and the contents of the memo continually state that there is no evidence of it being put into practice. I think the nominator and the other delete votes here have it right, and I would also argue that there's a case for this running up against WP:INDISCRIMINATE – there are many, many memos written and sent to senior leadership of organisations of all kinds, none of which are themselves notable. Because of the way this memo has been used in American political discourse I would be okay with redirecting this to the Muslim Brotherhood article's section on the topic, in a pinch. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Longhornsg recitation of secondary sources. Clearly the topic is notable, the sourcing is adequate, and article issues can be addressed. Coretheapple (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge to Muslim Brotherhood - While the document itself may be considered notable due to its role in US politics, I'm unconvinced that its independently notable, with it already being well covered in the United States section of the Muslim Brotherhood article. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/91-analysis-of-muslim-brotherhood-general-strategic.pdf
  2. ^ https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Jasser-AIFD-Statement-Muslim-Brotherhood-7-11.pdf
  3. ^ Carter, Wayne (2007-09-17). "Muslim Brotherhood's papers detail plan to seize U.S." The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 2025-10-27.
  4. ^ Shipler, David K. (2015-05-12). "Pamela Geller and the Anti-Islam Movement". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2025-10-27.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Terrorism&oldid=1321436113"