Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe


 * 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   keep. Non-admin closure. Ottre 10:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There is not enough material to warrant a separate article, the content is duplicated in the main Al-Qaeda article anyway Vexorg (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I came across this article in providing a Third Opinion; to my mind this article does not cover anything not already covered (sufficiently) elsewhere. I do not see any unique information here that could be merged into another article. PGWG (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It is a highly notable topic, and policy has been to improve such articles, not delete them. I note that, glancing at the history, it seems like much sourced material has been removed from the article in the past month through edit-warring, mostly on the part of the nominator. Following up removal of sourced information from an article, and then proposing that the article be deleted on the grounds of having insufficient material, strikes me as not terribly kosher. Ray  Talk 18:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * the previously removed material had NO SOURCES showing Al-Qaeda Involvement in Europe. Vexorg (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Al-Qaeda is certainly a notable topic but it has it's own main article. Vexorg (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Al-Qaeda in Europe is a highly notable topic. 28k hits on Gscholar, 1610 hits on Gbooks, Over 100k hits on Gnews. Including numerous book chapters, full articles, and at least one book devoted exclusively to examining the phenomenon. That any mention of, among others, the Hamburg cell, the formative role of the Bosnian Mujahedin, Al-Qaeda recruiting in Londinistan, or others have been excised from the article does not rewrite history. Ray  Talk 19:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Per Ray. Much of the sourced material has been removed by the nominator, who has some vendetta against the article. You can also see a number of news articles on terror cells located in Europe and the BBC had a story a few days ago about how it is likely there will be more plans to attack Europe, so this article could and should develop very well if the nominator stops trying to delete everything. TheoloJ (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Further evidence of nominator trying to destory the article, he removed the material about an Al-Qaeda militant claiming Russia is not in Europe, however if he bothered to take a 30 second look at North Caucasus, he would see Dagestan is located within the European part of Russia. TheoloJ (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking through the history of the article, most of the items removed that I can see are either "this was like Al-Qaeda, but wasn't actually them", or "this was inspired by them but was done by someone/a group of people not members of Al-Qaeda", or "Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility, but has been proven to be someone else". If this is kept (which, as I stated above, I do not believe it should be), it should be renamed (per WP:SAL) as it seems to be (and has been, at it's largest) simply a list of events which have their own full page. PGWG (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete The reason for nominating this article for deletion is that the very tiny amount of Al-qaeda involvement in Europe is not enough to warrant a separate article. There is no 'vendetta' against the article on my part. As the editor accused of having a vendetta I can happily state I have no problem with including into Wikipedia any properly sourced instances of Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe in the main AL-Qaeda article. TheoloJ (talk) says that "this article could and should develop very well" - How can it develop very well without Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe? Is the editor waiting for more terrorist attacks in Europe in order that the article can expand? Vexorg (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin This !vote is by the nominator. Ray  Talk 19:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into Al-Qaeda per PGWG. I had considered nominating this article for deletion myself when I saw it on 3O.  The topic is certainly notable, and the information should definitely be included somewhere.  However, even when this article was at its peak, there wasn't enough material to justify separating it from the main Al-Qaeda article.  The Al-Qaeda article is large and could probably benefit from some pruning, but I don't think is a good section for that.  MirrorLockup (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to Alqaeda no reason for separating it from the article Alqaeda. Rirunmot (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, to suggest merging is like suggesting that Censorship in Canada should be redirected to Censorship; do we really want a Terrabyte-large article on Al-Qaeda, FFS? I recently admonished another user who began actually blanking/redirecting articles about individual al-Qaeda leaders to the main "Al-Qaeda" article...this is bordering on lunacy - and while this situation isn't quite so extreme, I think the same arguments apply. The article is not very good right now, but that is the nature of a Wiki; that it will improve with time - and we do not delete articles for being crappy...we fix them. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 20:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to fix. The article isn't being nominated for deletion becuase it is crappy it's being nominated becuase there isn't enough notable material to warrant a seperate article. Suggesting merging is NOT like suggesting that Censorship in Canada should be redirected to Censorship as the Censorship in Canada article is big enough and notable enough to warrant a seperate article. I also note there is now a desperate attempt by one editor to include anything remotely linked with organisations alleged by some to have links with Al-Qaeda simply to pad out the article to sway opinion. You argue that the article will improve over time? Well surely that's dependent upon Al-Qaeda attacking enough targets in the future to warrant a dedicated article. Do we create articles based upon speculation of future events. Vexorg (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "there is now a desperate attempt by one editor to include anything remotely linked with organisations alleged by some to have links with Al-Qaeda simply to pad out the article to sway opinion" - You show a worrying level of ignorance for someone so heavily involved in the article. The 2006 plot would have killed at least 2000 people and had direct connections to Al-Qaeda and Chechnya is a major conflict, the fact that there are Al-Qaeda militants supporting the Chechen insurgency is certainly worth mentioning. TheoloJ (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And the relevance of Chechnya being a major conflict to any Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe is what? I rest my case regarding your 'desperate attempt'. Vexorg (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Chechnya war is related to this because there are Al-Qaeda militants fighting against the EUROPEAN Russian forces as part of the Chechen war. So... One could safely say that there is Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe and because this is an article about Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe, any Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe should be mentioned. TheoloJ (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * None of this bothered you before the article was up for deletion. You are indulging in Extremist Inclusionism becuase of what seems to have become an obsession. I hear that someone alleged to have been in the same country as Osama bin laden once had a dirty weekend in Paris. Put it in the article. :) Vexorg (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it happened little over a week before the article was nominated for deletion and I hadn't heard about it, until I searched for further information to add to the article. "I hear that someone alleged to have been in the same country as Osama bin laden once had a dirty weekend in Paris. Put it in the article." Wow, this coming from a user who got all teary eyed over being "patronised". TheoloJ (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Teary eyed' ??? - I think most long time editors would call you out if you placed a 'Welcome To Wikipedia' template on their talk page and then described their good faithed edits as 'vandalism', like you exactly did to me.Vexorg (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when has there been a consensus to remove non-English language references? TheoloJ (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when has there been a concensus to include many duplicate sources, especialyl when many of them are from sources not usually considred reputable on Wikipedia? Vexorg (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thenews.com/pk - Pakistan's leading English language newspaper. http://www.lavanguardia.es - Completely valid Spanish language news website. http://g1.globo.com - Major Brazilian news agency http://noticias.terra.com.br - Another notable Brazilian news agency http://www.knack.be - Totally valid news website So, do you actually have any basis to back up your claim that these are "usually" not considered reputable? Or was this yet another case of you removing references because you haven't heard of them? Also, please provide a link to where consensus was reached to decide any of these references should not be used, I can't find it. TheoloJ (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Irish times - Major Irish news agency


 * There's all kinds of rubbish published in the Net. That's why sources have to be considered reputable. Otherwise Wikipedia loses it's value. You cannot provide any source that gits your agenda and then use the excuse that the opposing editor hasn't heard of them. Most of those sources you cite are only reputable in YOUR opinion. Wikipedia is not just about YOUR opinion. if information is notable enough it will be found in what is normally considered reputable sources, like the BBC or the like. Use obscure websites for sources when nothing else is available and your edits are likely to be removed. Vexorg (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Although English-language sources are preferred, the websites you mention are published by major newspapers and media companies and are probably acceptable if they are used correctly. The fact that they are not in the English language doesn't make them obscure or unreliable. snigbrook (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Although if you were referring to this edit maybe you were correct. snigbrook (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 19:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 19:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, I notice there are legitimately-published books that seem to suggest this is a legitimate branch of study;
 * Al Qaeda in Europe: the new battleground of international jihad‎ - by Lorenzo Vidino, Steven Emerson - Political Science - 2006 - 403 pages
 * Joining Al-Qaeda: Jihadist Recruitment in Europe‎ by Peter R. Neumann - Political Science - 2009 - 71 pages
 * Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 21:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand--at present the article is really not informative enough to keep and could well be merged, but as Sherurcij has shown,  there is a great deal of content that can and should be added.    DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This article can certainly be expanded as the books pointed to be Sherucij suggest. I found another book here - Al-Qaida's jihad in Europe: the Afghan-Bosnian network by Evan Kohlman to add as a possible source. Davewild (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.