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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Terrorism.

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[edit]

La guerra civile[edit]

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

This article is very odd. It started life as what appears to be a personal essay/content fork about Italian politics (entirely sourced to La guerra civile) under the title Terrorism in Italy since 1945, then at some point someone misinterpreted the content as about the book itself and content about that book introduced and the essay stuff removed, so for the past 13 years it's been about the book, but under the original title. I tried to find sources under that title, failed for 20 minutes, realized what happened, and moved the page.

Anyway, still can't find any reviews/analysis/sources. It's probable they may exist given the language barrier and very generic title, but I couldn't find any. If sufficient sources are presented I can withdraw. As an ATD if there are no sources redirect to the author Giovanni Pellegrino. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Italy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Levitt[edit]

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

Originally created by some pro-Israeli sock puppet in 2008 that has since been perma-banned? Very sporadic updates since then. Cannot find any independent secondary sources (Washington Institute is main source of all the info, his employer, and is also a pro-Israeli thinktank?), and this reads more like some kinda WP:RESUME than anything else. I cannot think of any good way to salvage this without useful secondary and independent sources. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Terrorism, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:Prof#c1 on GS cites. Also WP:Author for books on counter-terrorism. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC). Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
all the sources saying he is an important figure in counterterrorism are from his own books or the thinktank he is a part of User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The books alone are not enough but I found and added plenty of reviews (11 for 3 books), giving him a pass of WP:AUTHOR. I agree that there is also a case for WP:PROF#C1. The nominator's interjection of politics into the rationale for deletion is also troublesome. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for edits and review citations.

i didnt see matthew levitts citation count actually, kinda agree on wp:prof 1 now that he is notable, so i kinda change to weak keep maybe. not sure about wp:author.

pointing out the politics is not troubling i think. his page reads very much like a wp:resume and does not indicate that the think tank he works at has been identified by both nytimes and others as both founded by aipac, run with money from aipac donors, and very much proisraeli.

much of his work reflects this bias (i found his article by seeing folks uncritically cite his work as bedrock truth on wikipedia pushing that muslim brotherhood/hamas had infiltrated many if not most muslim orgs)

much of it still reads like a wp:resume i think, especially as article takes significant amount of info from the thinktank. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also for future help in determining the notability of these types of articles, how did you find such book reviews?

honestly asking, the first few page of google search when i was looking were all just his own work or the think tank, didnt know where else to search or find other sources and would love new ways to find sources for articles User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found many of them using a JSTOR advanced search with his name as a quoted string, checking the box restricting the search results to reviews. With that as a base, I filled in some more searching Google Scholar for works whose titles included the title of the book. E.g. search string intitle:"Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God". —David Eppstein (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on WP:AUTHOR grounds. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Convinced by arguments and citation count (didn't see them). Still think the article could use some work. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Pattani bombing[edit]

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

The sources are all from the time of the event. Need lasting coverage and impact to meet WP:EVENT. A search for sources yielded sources for a different bombing in Pattani in 2016. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Thailand. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is well sourced and the incident has continued to be discussed both for itself and as part of the overall security situation in Thailand. A short documentary was made about one of the suspects. I've added links from 2018 and 2020. Article needs some cleanup especially the "attack" narrative that lacks inline citations. Oblivy (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Timeline of events related to the South Thailand insurgency#2017, where it is mentioned. If what Oblivy says is true, then I'd vote keep, but I can't actually find what is mentioned above, or verify that it has long standing significance. The added links are bordering on run of the mill and don't seem to have much commentary. Or commentary on the documentary. If that is provided I would change my vote to keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage can be found in the Al Jazeera, CNA, and International Business Times articles. I don't think run-of-the-mill applies to any of that.

The deletion rationale was about lasting coverage and impact. The event gets continuing discussion by security researchers like this[1]. It seems to have gotten extended discussion in Wheeler, Thailand's Southern Insurgency in 2017: Running in Place (2018, paywalled). The court case was reported as a standalone article in the Bangkok Post, a good indicator of lasting impact, as is the fact that a filmmaker decided to make a documentary about it. The article isn't about the documentary - it's cited to show that there was lasting coverage of the event via the documentary - and I don't think it's reasonable to require commentary on the documentary. Oblivy (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone wishing to vote on this should probably have a look at the substantially revised article. I've added cites, and have been through most or all of the ones that are in the article. Lack of inline citations in some places has been dealt with. I have made my case for sustained coverage and impact and these changes strengthen that argument. Oblivy (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice to further merger discussion on the talk page. There does seem to be just enough coverage to support a stand-alone article, though whether the content (which isn't very extensive) would be better served within the broader context of the conflict would be an editorial consideration. The timeline article is already quite long and brief as it is, so a lot of restructuring would be needed before it can become a suitable merge target. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals[edit]