Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state


 * 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 as a hopelessly ill-defined political battleground masquerading as a list. The editors arguing to keep the article have stated that it meets criteria, but do not elaborate how this article can ever be neutral or stable; those arguing for deletion have pointed out numerous unfixable flaws in the premise and content of the article. -Wafulz 17:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Labelled? By who? When? This will never be anything other than a battleground. It amounts to a POV fork of the State Terrorism articles that already exist and we don't need another front in these fights. It'll always be a POV magnet for edit warriors already active in other areas of Wikipedia. RxS 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The article state terrorism has no accounts of terrorism, it only discusses the definitions by various governments and NGOs. Perhaps you are thinking of the article State-sponsored terrorism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring specifically to the state terrorism article but to the various articles describing allegations of acts of state terrorism, for example: Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka and Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. The plural might not have been as clear as it could have been. RxS 03:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge/Delete and Redirect with State-sponsored terrorism. Basically the same "article" and I agree with RxS' statement above. Nat Tang ta 03:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with State-sponsored terrorism and please realize that Merging articles 1) does not require you to take them to AfD and 2) does not even involve deletion one of the parent article, as the history of both articles has to be preserved in order to fulfill GFDL criteria. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article does not violate WP:LIST. Thanks Taprobanus 15:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: But it does violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and RxS is quite right:  even if there was a generally accepted definition of "state terrorism" (which there is not) this will just be another perpetual football kicked around by polarized factions.    RGTraynor  18:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate disagree with you RG, because you are reasonable guy, but WP:NPOV is never a reason to delete and WP:NOR is in conflict with WP:LIST, is'nt it ? Taprobanus 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * RxS said it perfectly well below. A list with an uncontroversial, generally agreed-upon definition doesn't conflict with WP:NOR.  A list comprised of unproven incidents (many of which would be sheer allegation) for which there'd be numerous points of knife-fight controversy?  No.  Heck, let's see how many of editors -- and I note that a number of the participants on this AfD are regulars in one nationalist/irredentist/civil war controversy or another -- can agree on the definition of "state."    RGTraynor  16:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect per Nat Tang. Nothing wrong with controversial subjects, but the inclusion criterion is wooly enough that the list will never be more than OR, and the content is dealt with elsewhere in any case. EyeSereneTALK 20:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Mantanmoreland 21:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. This serves no purpose but a redundant rehash of the main articles or the main articles of the countries themselves. Put that bar of soap away; it does not need to be used everywhere. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as it meets WP:LIST and WP:RS its fine. Baka man  23:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's the issue, keeping it in compliance with WP:LIST will be a never ending battleground. We have the material elsewhere and rather than using this as a list, people will use this as a POV fork (and are using it that way right now). For reference: Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. Look at the talk page and see the mud fights over sourcing. Over a list. RxS 14:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Bakaman. Lotlil 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this POV battleground.  Giggy  UCP 04:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * keep per bakamanc --Sharz 07:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * keep Accusations of NPOV and OR are specious. The article is properly sourced and makes no original claims;  it presents the topic at hand in a neutral and factual manner.  Stone put to sky 15:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if you look at the talk page you'll find disagreement over whether the list is properly sourced and presented in a neutral and factual manner. Now, that's not in itself reason to delete but the issue is that it'll never be anything other than a POV fork of other state terrorism pages. See my comment below. RxS 13:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * keep and possible merge as per above. 66.142.90.121 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Facts are presented in NPOV and meets WP:RS.  Johnathan1156 03:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * keep Labelled? By whom? When? are discussed on the particular articles.Lustead 13:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But they are having separate disagreements on the talk page. Same fight, different page. The content on this list is being developed separately from the other state terrorism pages which is not how lists are supposed to work and why this one will never be a proper list. RxS 13:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The list is inherently POV. Beit Or 13:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Very NPOV and meets WP:RS. Bmedley Sutler 00:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * keep as per Bakaman Harlowraman 07:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is not a List of state terrorism acts as identified by a state. It is something much different and the present article could not meet NPOV, V, NOT, and OR. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 09:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom, POV fork -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  12:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As per Bakaman and others. Passes WP:List Watchdogb 16:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. This is a blatant POV fork.  Also the very nature of the list is contrived and violates WP:LIST too(as RxS has explained above). Sarvagnya 17:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted. This discussion appears too vote-like. More in depth, substantive arguments from both sides are needed for an entry of such magnitude. El_C 18:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)'''

-
 * Strong Delete-people have forgotten the true essence of Wikipedia and sadly dragging this into a wrong track. POV forks such as "state terrorism bla bla bla..'s should not have any place in Wikiepdia. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 11:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- seems like it would be crufty to me, even if that is not the objective. At worst, it makes Wikipedia an enabler- since its terrorism as defined by specific states, it seems that the lack of a defined criteria could be worrisome. And the sorted by state modifier really benefits no one. I think a category would be better. David Fuchs( talk ) 17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- Should we allow an on-line encyclopedia is going to become a politicle poster board- vehemently No. Bodhi Dhanapala says delete.Bodhi dhana 17:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as violation of NPOV, V, OR and SOAP, in agreement with Storm Rider, RGTraynor and nom. Not only is the title itself a messy, poorly written screed of a POV fork, but the entire article drips with a POV that is Anti-American and Anti-X-country.  Citing a single, albeit respected, academic source, Noam Chomsky, does not make a good encyclopedia entry.  Poorly defined terms per David Fuchs.  I am not sure the problems can be fixed. The proper place for such an essay (which is what it is) would be DailyKos or some other blog.  Then I'll comment on it there.  Furthermore, I am not sure it properly synthesizes the research itself.  For all these reasons, the article must be deleted. Bearian 18:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it is merely a random collection of quotes/opinions by various individuals where they use the words "state terrorism" to describe events covered in detail in other Wiki articles. This POV Fork can therefore never meet the standards of a encyclopedic article. Currently it contains allegations by Ching-In Moon, Chaesung Chun, James Lutz, Brenda Lutz, Daya Somasundaram etc. How far are we willing to go with this? Will Wikipedia editors opinions soon be included too? Per Berian these belong on respective blogs, not Wikipedia. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 20:09, 1 August 2007 (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.