Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Islamic terrorist attacks


 * 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. First, let's dispense with the obligatory, but somewhat pointless, vote counting. I came up with 12 delete, 14 keep. snottywong's tool came up with 12 & 12, so at least we're in rough agreement on the raw numbers.

Breaking down the arguments, I got (the numbers in parentheses are my count of how many people raised a particular point, and may not add up to the raw totals):

Delete:
 * NPOV (3)
 * OR/SYN (2)
 * RS (2)
 * per (7)

Keep:
 * sources include major news outlets (4)
 * fix problems by editing, not deletion (3)
 * meets GNG (2)
 * WP is not censored (1)
 * not OR, since most items already have articles (1)
 * per (1)

It's obvious that there's no consensus to delete. The only real question is whether there's any consensus at all. The raw numbers suggest No Consensus, but overall the Keep arguments impresses me as better grounded in policy, and the Delete camp included a large number of per somebody else comments which, while valid, don't add a lot to the discussion. So, I'm going to call this a weak consensus to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Islamic terrorist attacks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason

This article is primarily original research, particularly of the WP:SYN variety. It is a compilation of incidents, which some editors have put together based on their assumptions of whether the perpetrators were Muslim (no reliable source states that they are), and based on their judgement of whether the incident qualifies as "Islamic terrorism". This list is then used to imply the editors' unsourced conclusion in the lead that "Muslims seem to be sympathetic to the ideals of Islamic revival through Jihad, lest they must also give a thought to thousands of people that are killed every year by these Jihadists. The following is a list of acts of terrorism committed by Muslims for the purpose of achieving varying political and/or religious ends. The total number of deaths as a result of the acts of terrorism listed on this page (from 1980–present) is over 20,000."

Please note that the judgement used by editors for even parsing the data for "Islamic terrorism" is incorrect. Any form of Political violence where the perpetrator "could be" Muslim is listed, regardless of the confirmation of the identity of the perpetrator, the motive, or whether the target was a civilian or military target. Hence, not only is the article original research, the research is actually largely flawed and incorrect.

Even ignoring the flawed data, structure, and conclusion, the article should not exist at all since no such list is supplied by any reliable source and since, as the Terrorism page has noted, the topic is largely undefined.Poyani (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 3.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 18:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - POV essay. I'll illustrate this with a parallel example. Tim McVeigh was Catholic. Various acts of terrorism against abortion clinics have been made by Christians. Ergo, a perfect starting point for List of Christian terrorist attacks... Carrite (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I expect what is important here is not whether the perpetrator happened to be Religion X. But rather whether they performed the act in the name of Religion X (or, more accurately, their understanding of what Religion X calls for).  A far better example on the Christian side than McVeigh, therefore, would for example be this fellow.  And yes -- there's no question, given that we do have an article entitled Christian terrorism -- the notion is not antithetical to the Project.  Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism, which was closed a Speedy Keep, has some highly relevant discussion which applies here as well. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article violates one of our fundamentals, a neutral point of view. This list focuses on negative incidents by extremist elements of a religion with no way to provide balance. Where is the information about Muslim groups fighting against extremists and terrorism? This list is not encyclopedic. While many of the sources reliably link an incident to a particular Islamic extremist group, creating a list of "Islamic terrorist attacks" is no more suitable than the example given by Carrite. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 19:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the nominator, this is an opinion piece lacking in neutrality and verifiability. And I don't even need to read the rather astounding lede to know that. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Carrite — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources Cited in List of Islamic terrorist attacks include the most reliable and trusted news sources around the world like CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera ,The New York Times, Reuters etc and can be verified any time for full information about the terror attack, it's perpetrators, no of people dead, injured etc.
 * All these acts are committed by Islamic fundamentalists (a.k.a fundamental Muslims ) for achieving Islamic goals that range from political to Religious.
 * The daily incidents of mass murdering and bombing of innocent civilians for perceived political or Islamic reasons carried out by Islamic fundamentalist organizations like Al-Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, Ansar al-Islam, Armed Islamic Group of Algeria, Army of Islam, Boko Haram, Taliban, Egyptian Islamic Jihad,Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Jemaah Islamiyah, Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Indian Mujahideen, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan etc constitute as Islamic terror attacks, when they kill people en mass for there Islamic values then it ought be called as Islamic terrorism.
 * This Article does not violate any fundamentals of Wikipedia and maintains strict neutral point of view on all incidents listed.
 * As regards to information about Muslim groups fighting against extremists and terrorism ,well it's extremist Muslim groups that are causing Terrorism and the groups that are fighting this include organizations like NATO, Consilium(within Europe), US department of state(in US) among many others.
 * If one regards that Terrorism is largely undefined then this list of daily mass murders carried out by fundamental Islamic groups can be listed as List of Attacks by Fundamental Islamic Organizations
 * This list includes deadly terror attacks on targets ranging from civilian to military carried out by Fundamental Islamic Groups and not by people perceived to be Muslims, also this article does not list the religion of the perpetrators of these terror attacks as Muslim or christian or Atheist.
 * Note: This article is titled as List of Islamic terrorist attacks and not as List of Muslim Terror attacks --- Rim sim (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Rim Sim, you must not be looking at the same article as me. Can you show a single reliable source which indicates, lets say, any of the first three incidents listed, are acts of "Islamic terrorism" as you defined above, i.e. "mass murdering and bombing of innocent civilians for perceived political or Islamic reasons carried out by Islamic fundamentalist"? The first three incidents listed are the 1980 Misgav Am hostage crisis, the 1980 Belgium granade attack, and the 1981 Vienna synagogue attack.  The wikipedia article for each attack explains it was done by Arab nationalists and mercenaries (such as Abu Nidal Organization) and not Muslim fundamentalists.  Can you show a reliable source where it says the religion of the attackers? Poyani (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

color="orange">→Talk to me!→ ]] 19:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carrite. - →Davey 2010→ [[User talk:Davey2010|<font

Dear sympathisers -we have never said that these acts are committed by muslims, it's Islamic fundamentalists.
 * Keep


 * For clear understanding of Arab nationalists, Muslim fundamentalists read this wonderful book Islam:TheArabImperialism(book available online) written by Anwar Shaikh a Muslim, your will understand what has happened for the past 1400 years in the name of Islam, Islamism, Islamophobia, Jihad, Arab Nationalism ,Muslim fundamentalism etc

Rim sim (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * one can be sympathetic to certain groups of people out of fear of reprisal from them ,but sympathies misplaced could lead to disasters.


 * Comment - "one can be sympathetic to certain groups of people out of fear of reprisal from them ,but sympathies misplaced could lead to disasters." I concurr. Wikipedia is under pressure from different lobbies or propaganda groups that want to use the encyclopaedia not to improve the access to knowledge but to orientate this knowledge for political reasons. We may fear they retaliate in outing us, harassing us on WP:AN/I or in the articles that we edit. But at the end, it remains that all these articles with "List of [political violence] by [my enemies]" do not increase knowledge but just carry a political message. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Response to comment -- Lists like this one are a one-stop info shop for researchers looking for historical info about the subject (in this case, Islamic terrorist attacks), and are therefore valuable for at least this reason. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Pluto -- you might want to consider whether, as you put it, "Wikipedia is under pressure from different lobbies or propaganda groups that want to" delete facts, that are reported in RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Response to all of Above This segment of the conversation alone is enough to show the absurdity of this page. The fact that this AfD is being turned into a conspiracy theory about how Muslims are trying to take over the world just makes my head spin. Let me sum up my argument above as follows: This page starts with the attack "1980 Misgav Am hostage crisis".  If you have a single reliable source which states this is a "Islamic" terrorist attack (i.e. carried out by "Islamic Fundamentalists" as Rim Sim described above, then leave it.  If not, then cross it off the list.  If you repeat the same step over the entire page you will cross off 95% of the attacks listed here. If you are seriously concerned that a secret cabal of Islamists is trying to take over he world, please feel free to make plenty of websites for yourselves and discuss it in blogs, but keep it off of Wikipedia. Should you want to write a book on that topic I have a catchy title for you.  Consider "The Protocols of the Elders of Islam" Poyani (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom Darkness Shines (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom and per Carrite. I'll also add, without details for obvious reasons, that there's as good or even better sourcing for both "List of terrorist attacks by the Democratic Party" and "List of terrorist attacks by the Republican Party" than there is for this.  In fact, there's a better LISTN argument for those than for this.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: If the Category:Islamic terrorism can include all the incident articles in it, a list of these article can very well be present on Wikipedia. Whether the intro or any other paragraphs are presenting some sort of synthesis, is a different issue best handled by deletion of those claims. am amazed on how some long standing editors and some admins have voted for deletion of the article. Are we censoring here? §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 15:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And I'm amazed that a long-standing editor is essentially arguing per WP:OTHERSTUFF, but perhaps we'll just continue to be mutually amazed.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How does my comment relate with OS? §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 18:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Dharma made more than one point. And as OTHERSTUFF states: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is indeed in need of work. It is a list; it seems that it must be inherently a synthesis of similar items in accord to the main article on the topic: Islamic terrorism. That not all items on the list satisfy the criterion isn't reason to delete the list but to improve it. Of course, that would take considerable effort and debate on the talk page should be directed to that effort. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and Dismiss RfD With Prejudice The article is a LIST of terrorist attacks that for the most part ALREADY HAVE articles of their own in Wikipedia, and as such inherently CANNOT be original research since each attack must be verified with reliable sources in order to merit an article in the first place. In fact, the ONLY part of the article that can even REMOTELY be construed as "original research" is the unsourced statement regarding "Islamic revival through jihad", which I personally deleted just the other day -- so Poyani's claim regarding original research in the article is entirely without merit.  Furthermore, Poyani's claim that "no such list is supplied by any reliable source" is a FLAT-OUT LIE, because EVERY attack in this list HAS in fact been cited in reliable sources.  And finally, Poyani's claim that "the topic is largely undefined" is an inherently fallacious argument -- it's tantamount to saying that since terrorism is not precisely defined, there's no such thing, which is self-evidently false!  Therefore, not only do I recommend that this RfD be dismissed as entirely without merit, but that User:Poyani's clearly false allegations in this RfD, along with the user's self-declared political prejudices (on the article's talk page, the user claimed that making a list of Islamic terrorist attacks is inherently racist) be taken into account if said user ever submits any similar RfD regarding a politically sensitive article in the future -- I believe the legal term is "dismiss with prejudice". 24.5.122.13 (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not made any false allegations. Please assume good faith. I have certainly not attacked anyone else personally here. Your logic that "the article is a LIST of terrorist attacks that for the most part ALREADY HAVE articles of their own in Wikipedia, and as such inherently CANNOT be original research" is false.  Just because an attack has occurred and is notable does not automatically make it an "Islamic terrorist attack".  Most of the listed attacks have absolutely no reliable source describing them as "Islamic" attacks. The notion that they are "Islamic" terrorist attacks is just pure OR. Poyani (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Unconfirmed - Shalom11111 (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly a notable subject for Wikipedia, there is no WP:SYN here. A Google search brings over 15 million results for this, and there are dozens of similar articles on Wikipedia (such as Christian terrorism for example, which has coverage on past Christian terrorist attacks too). If anything, the only thing that should be done is perhaps choosing a different title for the article, or adding this template on top, if we decide (with consensus) that it's needed:
 * Delete While the POV pushing isn't grounds for deleting an article, the fact that the article isn't a valid topic is. It's simply OR based on the opinion of the editors. I can also look up any terrorist incident involving white guys and then create an article called "List of white guy terrorist attacks" (don't worry I'm a white guy, I figured that would be a non-offensive analogy) but that doesn't mean correlation is causation. Delete as synthesis, whether it was intentional or not. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How is the topic not valid? Do you mean we should delete Islamic terrorism as well? §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 09:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * What Dharma said. Furthermore, we are talking about retaining the article, and editing the article so only properly sourced (non-OR) material is in the list.  There's no synth, if the RS defines it as such a form of terrorism.  Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. AfD is not for cleanup.  Nom complains that this is "primarily" OR.  Well -- the part that isn't OR certainly belongs, and this article therefore certainly belongs, albeit (though it is not an AfD concern) cleaned up. Also -- per my above comments, and the comments in the speedy-keep-closed Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: The bulk of this article is a list of attacks verified through reliable sources, which CANNOT be OR (a list is a compilation, not a synthesis) -- so the only place where it can contain OR is in the lead section, which makes up only a tiny portion of the article. And in fact I've gone through it and personally fixed what little OR there was. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. if there is a problem with the lead, fix it. The definition is at Islamic terrorism. Your reason for deletion can also be applied to any other terrorism or label related list. And there's 50+ of them - . So why has this page been nominated, but no others..?--Loomspicker (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * keep per Rim Sim. - 46.19.86.37 (talk)
 * Keep I am sure here and now the list has problems and it can be, in general, a can of worms. But as far as we keep it down to notable attacks that multiple reliable sources have linked to Islamic terrorism, then it is perfectly fine, and such a list can be done. Therefore the fact that some editors use OR or synthesis to put stuff in the list is a problem that is not intrinsic to the topic. Such issues can be fixed by editing, and as such are no reason to delete.-- cyclopia speak! 12:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * cyclopia, this is a very reasonable and level-headed approach to the problem. What I think you are failing to take into consideration is that if we were to delete every item listed which no RS describes as "Islamic terrorism" then we would be deleting nearly every item on the list.  There are maybe a handful of attacks listed which actually qualify as "Islamic terrorism".  Those who made this page have coupled those with every terrorist attack conducted in the Lebanese Civil War (by any faction), as well as the Arab Israeli conflict, the Iranian civil war, Kurdish uprising, Iraq war + Iraqi civil war, Syrian civil war, etc). They have justified the list on the basis that the Iranians+Arabs+Kurds+Iraqis+Syrians+Lebanese are probably Muslim. That would be the equivalent of making a similar list for "Christian terrorist attacks" and listing everything from the Oklahoma City Bombing to every attack in the Latin American civil wars of the 1980s. Poyani (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are maybe a handful of attacks listed which actually qualify as "Islamic terrorism". - As long as they are more than one, the list makes sense. You're piling up justifications to keep the list, since you keep talking of issues that can be dealt by editing. -- cyclopia speak! 21:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So any set of events or items which includes more than one member deserves an article in Wikipedia? There is no list of Islamic terrorist attacks in any RS. Poyani (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, this is a baseless statement that is not policy based whatsoever, Poyani. There are thousands of Wikipedia articles on all kinds of different lists that do not have any RS with a list on the subject. Take a look at Category:Lists, and read Help:List and WP:L to learn more. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Shalom11111. I understand your perspective.  I was just responding to the previous argument.  If you want a policy based reason for why we should delete take a look at WP:Terrorist.  It is clear cut.  There is a reason WP:Terrorist exists and that is because the word "Terrorist" and "Terrorism" are largely undefined.  It says the same in the article for Terrorism.  Generally speaking any entity which opposes the violence of another entity calls them "Terrorists". Professional organizations (such as most reliable sources) actually go to great lengths to avoid using the term at all.  The word "Islamic terrorist" is even worse.  To the users who created this page, any act of violence where the perpetrators can be assumed to be Muslim (such as cricket hooligans) is "Islamic terrorism".  They have created this page using NOTHING but their own original research.  None of the reliable sources listed describe any of the acts of violence as both "Islamic" or "Muslim" and most are not described as "terrorism". The synthesis was the lead which has now been deleted, but the page is still at best POV Essay + Original Research. Poyani (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't see any reason to delete it. --Metron (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as per nom and the argument offered by Carrite.--Muzammil (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep- this list contains most trusted and reliable news sources from CNN, BBC  to ,Al jazeera, RT (TV network) etc and every terror incident listed can be verified from their archives.  Rim sim (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - this list contains reliable sourcing and notable attacks. end of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable incidents, sourced to reliable sources, what's the problem? Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Can any of the people who keep claiming this article is based on reliable sources show a single reliable source which identifies the perpetrators of the first three listed incidents as "Islamic terrorism"? The first three incidents listed are the 1980 Misgav Am hostage crisis, the 1980 Belgium granade attack, and the 1981 Vienna synagogue attack. If you are going to claim that these are "Islamic" terrorist attacks, then at least present 1 (just one) single source which clearly identifies the perpetrators as Muslim.  If you cannot find it, then please refrain from claiming this article is not primarily based on (erroneous) original research.  Of the hundreds of attacks listed, there are maybe a dozen which would actually qualify as "Islamic terrorism" (i.e. carried out to further an Islamist goal)with actually cited reliable sources Poyani (talk)
 * This is entirely irrelevant. AfD is not cleanup. If you think some or most of the entries are not well sourced, feel free to remove them. What can be fixed by editing, we do not delete. The point here is that such a list can be compiled, and as such the entry does not need deletion. -- cyclopia speak! 21:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue of "reliable sources" is what those who oppose deletion have brought up. It was not my reason from the AfD.  I am just pointing out that even the extremely weak defense being used for keeping, i.e. "it has good RS" is actually false. There are many reasons to delete and literally no valid reasons to keep. Poyani (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cyclopia. He hit the nail on the head.  If we have RSs that support entries for inclusion in the list, the list is appropriate.  If, as Poyani charges, some entries do not belong on the list -- that is not a discussion to be had at AfD. That is a discussion for the article talkpage, on an article that has (appropriately) been kept.  And, as 10 of the last 12 editors have !voted keep, after the issues had been more fully surfaced, I think a considered examination of the issues leads to a keep conclusion.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not charge that "some" entries do not belong on the list. I charge that "nearly all" entries do not belong on the list.  If you prefer, I can edit the article right now and leave ONLY items which specifically cite "Islamic terrorism" in their listed RS, so you can make an informed decision on the subject.  I had already started this process before I brought forward the AfD. Literally ZERO of the items in the first section (1980 - 1989) had any RS which defined them as "Islamic terrorism".  I did not go further because I suspected it is the same right through. If you wish that I proceed with this feel free to ask. Poyani (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Poyani, you have a few misunderstanding, see my response to you below. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

*Strong Delete I don't know the convention given that I am the initiator of this request for deletion. For obvious reasons my position is Strong Delete. Poyani (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment : I just quickly went through all of the listed items and their listed references. Literally ZERO of them have an RS which describe the attack as "Islamic terrorism".  As it stands, the notion that any of the items listed is "Islamic terrorism" is not only completely OR, but also a very clear violation of WP:Terrorist. Poyani (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The exact words "Islamic terrorism" don't have to be written in a given source, as long as there's an established connection between the terror act and Islamic fundamentalism/Jihadist/Muslim extremism motives, especially if these terms are "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject," as Wikipedia's policy on WP:TERRORIST states. The article is currently undergoing massive deletions, while there's actually a lot to expand and add to it. As 'Dharmadhyaksha' rightly said, if the Category:Islamic terrorism can include all the incident articles in it, a list of these article can very well be present on Wikipedia. That is obviously the case for the vast majority of the events there. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In over 95% of the listed RS the words "Islam", "Muslim" or "Islamic" do not appear at all. Furthermore, in a large number of these the attacks are NOT described as "terrorism".  When you consider the intersection of the two, there are literally zero articles with RS.  So which editors are going to make the judgement call as to which attacks qualify as Islamic and which qualify as terrorism (and how is that not Original Research)?  Is supporters of the Pakistan cricket team attacking the bus carrying Sri Lankan cricket players (which is one of the attacks listed) and act of terrorism?  Is the mercenary group Abu Nidal assassinating people for pay (which is an item listed) an "Islamic" attack? Those are the easy ones.  What about the harder ones, such as middle eastern civil wars where dictators are often fighting groups which use Islam in their recruitment and propaganda?  What are the guidelines for attacks for which no one has taken responsibility but for which an entity (for political reasons) blame Islamists (such as the Argentina bombings which the Americans claim were carried by Hezbollah which Hezbollah denies, which is listed)? Or for another example see below from Huldra. Who is making all these judgement calls and given that the words "terrorism" and "Islam" "don't have to be in a written source" how is this not Original Research? And even further, how does this not violate the Manual of Style specifically WP:TERRORIST? Poyani (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is not exceptional, period. According to your logic, all the categories and subcategories (and even a few articles) in Category:Religious terrorism should be deleted as well. But they currently exist, for a variety of (justified) reasons, just like this article does. If they are deleted, I personally probably wouldn't object deleting this one also. The article is notable, and the issues you raised regarding the article's actual content should be discussed on its talk page. Shalom11111 (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom, and additionally, just one example: the Sharm/Sinai bombing which the Egyptian government said were made by Islamist. (Such claims of course brought lots of American money to the Egyptian military).... Independent analysers said they were made by Sinai beduin, who had been economically marginalised by the government, and who were not profiting from tourism. In other words, "Islamist terrorist" can also be used as very convenient scapegoats by governments that are not always known to tell the truth. Huldra (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - I'm just an another person who is amazed to see these experienced editors !voting "delete" here. The list simply meets general notability guideline (150+ RS, how much more do you assume it would be needing to reach GNG?) and the list includes notable attacks that they do have a standalone article itself and are attributed to reliable sources. Visit the article page to confirm. The nominator argues WP:OR as a reason of deletion (I do not see any other blue links there), which does not match any of the reasons of deletion laid by Wikipedia deletion policy. Well, we have a WP:DUCKSEASON here. Many long standing editors and administrators did follow the same, "as per nominator" (WP:SYN and neutrality is disputed). While, "inappropriate-title" as a reason of deletion was entertaining. Almost all keep reasons here, are WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:PERNOM, WP:MAJORITY or simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. "Neutrality is disputed", "at some instance verifiability fails" and "contains OR" are not reasons for deletion. The article, if includes such, requires discussion on the article's talk page, if needed a RfC, therefore clean-up not deletion!! WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Wikipedia is NOT censored. The article meets GNG and should be kept. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  21:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per Poyani. Even if such lists do not bring anything but controversies they are accepted on wikipedia. Anyway, in the current case, there is no source (secondary and even not primary) to assess these attacks were performed by Islamists. Even more, the huge majority of the ones that are/were introduced were simply not. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2014 (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.