Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian terrorism

Christian terrorism was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

Hopelessly POV, and not a real term (only 452 unique entries on google). I can't see anything other than long dispute arising from this somewhat non-encyclopaedic page. Delete. jguk 22:15, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: It might not be a valid term, but it is a valid concept. Needs to be expanded. DCEdwards1966 22:39, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but the current version has PoV and style problems. Wyss 22:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is well written and not hopelessly POV.  Cleanup where necessary, do not dilute. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 23:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep with lots of Cleanup and a cherry on top. --fvw *  23:41, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
 * Keep. The title is no more inherently absurd than Islamic terrorism, although the phenomenon itself may be less common/acknowledged. I have good faith in my fellow Wikipedians to make a good NPOV article out of this, even if it means dealing with revert wars down the line. It's certainly an encyclopedic subject matter in that a significant number of people perceive it to exist. [[User:Livajo|&#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#9786;]] 00:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs cleanup and non-POVing. jdb 01:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: When there are Christian terrorist groups, then there is a need for the term and coverage. At this point, the places where Christians are a minority have not yet had those Christians gather into terorist groups.  They have been rebels (Lebanon), but not terrorists yet.  Geogre 02:32, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The title is not inherently absurd, but I disagree with Livajo, who feels that "a significant number of people perceive it to exist". As the low number of google hits shows, this is not a commonly recognized term or concept. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:35, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Just because Google doesn't have a particularly high number of hits for that particular phrasing doesn't mean that significant numbers of people would not consider at least some of the acts mentioned in the article to be terrorism done in the name of Christianity. [[User:Livajo|&#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#9786;]] 04:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Burden of proof here is on you, I would say. Where are these significant numbers of people? Is there any evidence? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:51, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * I must ask, since when was Google the recognized meter of determining what is a "real term"? Also, please supply a definition of "significant number of people" - how many must there be for a term to be important enough? Further, defining a certain group as "rebels, but not yet terrorists" can be applied to just about every single terrorist group in the world, if you see it from their POV. --TVPR 09:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Significance Not valid as per Deletion Policy If you read Deletion_policy it says and I quote "Problems that don't require deletion ......Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article". Plus if you Add state terrorism section to it. It will become 'significant'. Good Idea let me add it.
 * Zain 10:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(UTC)
 * Ever hear of the Ku Klux Klan? Or are lynchings and crossburnings not terrorism?  Or is the KKK considered too small to be significant? Pedant
 * Keep. Concept is real, article does an above average job of NPOV in the version I just saw.  More (hopefully NPOV) info should be added about "economic" terrorism, links between certain christian groups and charities support for "terrorist" dictators around the world (Nigeria, Central America, etc) and perhaps relationships with the "war on terrorism" generally.  Does "terrorism" include state/group sponsored terrorism?  zen master 02:45, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Good question. Yes it does. See Noam Chomsky: Distorted Morality: America's War on Terror? (a cheapo DVD): the question of Christianity aside, Chomsky points out that terrorism (as defined by the US) goes back at least as far as the carpet-bombing of Tokyo. Keep -- Hoary 08:01, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Seems like a good idea for an article&mdash;Trevor Caira 03:11, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems legit to me. I'd also add some U.S. anti-abortion acts that are clearly and precisely terrorist acts by people who believe themselves to be acting in the name of Christ. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:18, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * That's right kids. God himself called me today (on the telephone) and asked me to contribute a holy EXTREME KEEP vote to this article.  Amen.  &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 07:36, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think this entire topic is rather suspect at this time.  This does not appear to be a commonly used term, and most of the groups listed as examples are engaging in terrorist acts for reasons that are only partly related to religion and have more to do with complex politcal, social, and economic issues. Indrian 07:52, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. No more suspect than Islamic terrorism.  --L33tminion | (talk) 21:21, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but for better or worse Islamic terrorism is a topic that has been viewed by many as a phenomenon worth considering as part of a larger whole. I am not convinced that the concept of Christian terrorism is so widely recognized. Indrian 21:46, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has encyclopedic value, and enhaces the Terrorism category. --Zappaz 04:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep In every "religion" there is terrorism, also among other Muslim and Christian,too. Btw,jguk google is not the solution. --ThomasK 08:56, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, if Islamic terrorism can exist, then so can this. Shane King 00:36, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is ridiculous, if islamism can have its own terrorism category, so can this. The mere motion to delete is POV, and nobody even noticed the existence of this topic until I expanded it beyond a 3-line stub. --TVPR 09:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * keep Yuckfoo
 * keep because according to 'wikipedia deletion policy' POV can't be sited as reason for deletion. Neither if a subject is a small portion of the total subject. Or If accuracy is in question. All these things don't qualify as deletion.Zain 10:35, 20 Dec 2004
 * keep Saw another user mention this term only got about 400 hits on Google, making it a "non-erm". For the time being, accepting the notion that google is a "term-meter", it hits for about 800 - the same as norwegian meatballs (kjøttkaker) - And about 4,2 million norwegians find these meatballs very real. Anyway - dirttossing aside, still a keep. Religious terrorism exists, as a known fact - and Christianity claims to be a religion. --D3z7ruc7 12:46, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep; seems like a reasonable topic and something that people might be interested in searching for information on. &mdash;Psychonaut 17:26, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. There is such a thing as "Christian terrorism," but this article does a lousy job of defining it. The Irish Republican Army, for example, isn't "Christian terrorist," it's nationalist terrorist. Just because most of a terrorist group's members are Christian doesn't make it "Christian terrorist." --Szyslak 04:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. We also have Islamic terrorism. Besides, PoV (and I don't know if this is PoV) is merely a reason for edits, not deletions. 129.177.61.124 08:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. A really good example of Christain Terrorism is the bombing of abortion clinics in the US.  It really does exist, and I swear I've heard this term before.  hfool 02:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has potential. (Ku Klux Klan is a very well known christian terrorist group.) Article needs some copyediting though, seems to have been written by someone for whom English is not their first language. Pedant 04:45, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.