Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grievance-based violence


 * 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.  Sandstein  05:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Grievance-based violence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is not a going term, considering the sourcing. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * leaning delete It gets plenty of hits, but they don't discuss it per se, My impression is that they don't see it as a term that needs explanation. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  ~ Amkgp  💬  03:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete not itself notable, doesn't meet WP:GNG, though perhaps suitable for wiktionary? --DannyS712 (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete This is clearly one man's pet phrase that he's made a page for (EDIT: I keep not signing things Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC))
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge: My gut says that this subject is a big deal but the general public just doesn't have a name for it. We should keep articles about subjects that are notable, even if the name is still rare, if we don't have any better name for it.  99% of the time, the lack of a widespread name in published sources indicates that the subject itself hasn't attracted enough attention, so we don't need to make the distinction; but when there is evidence otherwise, we should go with whether the subject itself is notable, not the name.  This subject is a class of behavior that, for lack of having a better term, our culture has recently extended "terrorism" to include even when they don't have a large class of the population as the target.  But "grievance-based" isn't just a Wikipedia user's made-up phrase: On Google Scholar (searching scholarly journals) there are 28 results for "Grievance-based violence" in quotes, and 1,660 results for "Grievance-based" violence without "violence" needing to be right afterwards, so the term does have some use in the last 10 years.  If you need evidence that the topic is pervasive, see Category:School shootings and Category:Workplace violence in the United States for a start.  And the media and schools and businesses certainly talk about it plenty; they just don't use this specific phrase (yet).  If we don't keep it, I don't know where it should be merged, but it's an important enough facet to merge to somewhere: Maybe just to Violence if we don't have an article about violence motives. --Closeapple (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as not verifiable. The first sentence starts "Grievance-Based Violence (GBV) is a term in security planning...."  Number of meaningful Ghits for the terms "grievance based violence" plus "security planning" comes up as zero.  So the very first sentence is false, probably, but it's definitely unsupported by evidence, and that's as far as we need to go.  I truly get Closeapple's point about the underlying concept having potential validity, and worth attention, but that's out of scope for this AfD.  --Lockley (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Using "security planning" as your search term is unduly narrow. Related terms like "security", "terrorism" and "counterterrorism" yield multiple academic and government site hits, including DHS.gov. Looks more like government-speak than a neologism to me. • Gene93k (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Not seeing enough to sustain a stand-alone article. To this layperson, this is academic jargon for the nature of terrorism.  Most terrorists believe that they are the injured party and their violence is righteous.  Might consider a merge or redirect to a terrorism-related topic, given a good rationale. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2020 (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.