Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Islamic insurgency theory


 * 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   delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Global Islamic insurgency theory

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

"Global Islamic Insurgency is a hypothesis formulated by Dr David Kilcullen, an Australian counterinsurgency and counterterrorism theorist."

As far as I can tell, this is the private theory of Dr Kilcullen. Google has 2 pages of hits for "Global Islamic insurgency theory", indicating that this term is not in widespread use.

This page fails to meet wikipedia's notability criteria. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or personal opinions, even if they are given a grandiose name.

There are some other issues with that page as well (it is littered with various tags), but I feel that the notability criterion alone is a sufficient reason for deletion. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - it was I who removed the PROD, mainly on the basis that while this is just a theory developed by one person (a bit like this...), it seems to have some decent sources, some notability etc. I think I understand what Jasy means by a "private theory" - I just don't believe that this is one. Nearly, but not quite ;-) ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 17:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * could you point out the decent sources? There are two sources in the list of refs. The first one is Kilcullen's paper. The second one has something to do with the cartoon controversy, and is only peripherally related to the topic. Seems to me that the number of independent sources for this article is exactly 0.Jasy jatere (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * could you point out how you establish the article's notability? Two pages of google hits is not much, and the hits are answers.com etc Jasy jatere (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the two .mil refs, as well as the .ac.uk one (from the British Defence Academy) confer sufficient notability. Please also note that my vote was a weak keep, and I (friendly-ly!) advise that you don't harangue everyone who votes against your wishes here; it's a discussion, people have different views! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 17:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I had not taken into consideration the external links, which are not refs proper. The ac.uk gives a 404, the mil sources either do not mention "insurgency" at all, or advocate an approach different from Kilcullen's. A quote: "In the case of the current war on terror, the enemy the United States needs to confront is not al Qaeda per se, but rather the conditions that gave rise to al Qaeda in the first place. ". I am not really sure why these links are there, but they do not seem to support GIIT.Jasy jatere (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. But I still consider that, on balance, the article should probably be kept, hence weak keep. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unless sources can be provided that show this theory is being used by anyone. While the sources seem to show that governments may share this mans view, they don't seem to show anything else. We need sources showing that his theory is influencing someone, and not just regurgitating a common view. Beach drifter (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment After re-reading I fail to see how this "theory" is anything but a drawn out description of what terrorism and insurgency is. I think most of us are aware that this is what is going on in some parts of the world, and it's not because of this mans theory that we know it. Beach drifter (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.67.124 (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - as a capital-T Theory it has yet to catch on. Hard to see how the disparate groups throughout the world have a master plan, too. "It is difficult to define exactly what goals the perceived movement of Global Islamic Insurgency are the most common within the movement's own general consensus." Quite. pablo hablo. 19:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article fails WP:N and appears to also fail WP:SYNTH Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails to assert or prove its notability outside of a single theorist. This is not sufficient to warrant its keeping. Cam (Chat) 06:21, 15 March 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.