Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012


 * 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   Move to List of terrorist incidents, 2012. While there isn't strong agreement in the discussion below when you look at the bolded votes, there does seem to be strong agreement within the discussions that this article diverges significantly from the format and inclusion criteria of the dozens of articles covering 1970-2010, for no particular reason. Deleting the article wouldn't accomplish much, as it contains a lot of information which does fit the long-standing inclusion criteria. I'll move this article over the redirect at List of terrorist incidents, 2012, and I'd encourage interested editors to remove entries which do not fit the long-standing inclusion criteria in the 1970-2010 articles. I'd also encourage the same work to be boldly done on the two 2011 articles. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 17:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012

 * – ( View AfD View log )

"List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012" has developed into a score card for those committing non-encyclopedic mayhem to keep track of and coordinate their efforts via Wikipedia. The entries include a variety of motives, (political, criminal or other unknown), a variety of actors (state or non-state), and a variety of incident types (conflicts and attack) so long as the incident involved the use of a weapon (armed). This is contrary to the long-accepted inclusion criteria listed at List of terrorist incidents. Moreover, the list alters the 1970-2010 pattern of stand-alone sub-articles developed for the "List of Terrorist Incidents" topic (See the older articles linked from Template:List of Terrorist Incidents). In addition, "List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012" misappropriated the List of Terrorist Incidents template so that List of terrorist incidents readers are brought to the "List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012." While the "List of terrorist incidents" topic generally was found to provide encyclopedic information, see Articles for deletion/List of terrorist incidents, the "List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012" goes well outside of encyclopedic information. "List of Terrorist Incidents" and its related 1970-2010 articles have long term consensus. "List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012" exceeds the scope of the long consensus developed in connection with "List of Terrorist Incidents". The article should be deleted. As for redirecting to List of terrorist incidents, 2012, the creator of the "List of terrorist incidents, 2012" page, User:X17:2l, is blocked indefinately as being a sock puppet. In this case, it may be better to delete and wait for an editor in good standing to create the "List of terrorist incidents, 2012" article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep No policy-based argument for deletion. If some content should be deleted, then edit the article, but some of this is valid content. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - This strikes me as a POV-skewed list — where is the March 11, 2012 incident involving US soldier Robert Bales, in which he allegedly made an "armed attack" that killed 17 Afghan civilians? We have every car bomb, IED, grenade by Arabs or Afghans or Muslims around the world — but not one single American drone attack? Hmmmm. So we might legitimately say this is an indiscriminate and uncompletable list, or we might say that it's a POV exercise disguised as general information... Does that mean it should be deleted? Not necessarily. But my backhair is up, for sure... Carrite (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit:Carrite (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and get the other two, too. These three are POV forks of List of terrorist incidents, 2011 and List of terrorist incidents, 2012.  The "armed conflicts and attacks" articles have substantially less well-defined inclusion criteria (what is an "armed attack"?), do not follow the consensus system of presenting terrorism information, and differ from the "terrorist incidents" articles primarily in including US drone strikes (such that they were reachable via Template:List of Terrorist Incidents).  Regardless of the outcome of this AFD, however, I have boldly edited that template to direct readers to the "terrorist incidents" article for 2011, in line with the other 30+ articles in the series.  Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Amended my comment. I'd somehow managed to reference only the 2011 ones despite the 2012 one being the actual article at play here; there are 3 of these in total. My justification still stands, copyedits made to reflect the real count. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename List of terrorist incidents in 2012 (and all those other lists with commas instead of "in"). The current contents don't match the unacceptably broad criteria: any armed non-military attacker anywhere for any reason. Then, delete the mentally ill gent with the baseball bat. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename & Shorten:I am one of the people who edits this article and have been doing it for at least half a year now. Last year I just used the shorter '2011 terrorist incidents' one but somehow this year this split in two and I decided to use that one. I live in Europe and have a purely personal interest in international politics and modern terrorism in general - so I would agree that the R. Bates attack could be included here, as well as various drone incidents. However some drone attacks are included and then later removed by other accounts... I suggest we rename the article and shorten it substantially to involve only major attacks with a high number of casualties (also in the context of what the country's population is), an important target or are otherwise significant. This would include approximately half of what you see in the article right now. I think it will be a waste to just delete all of it - personally I take some time almost every day to monitor at least three news agencies and a few other websites on Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria & the Maghreb, Russia, Somalia and numerous others and I would hate to see all of this wasted because of someone else's interventions. Skycycle (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: What are the criteria for inclusion? Would the Oikos University shooting be an "individual violent attack" or an "attacks by state and non-state actors for political, criminal or other unknown motives"? Location (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter  (tell me stuff)  17:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep I do not see that this article violates the long standing principals of inclusion at List of terrorist incidents.  It does need editing though. Birdshot9 (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Im with user Birdshot9 on this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete not because of POV problems, but the incidents here are almost entirely duplicative of what is covered in the List of terrorist attacks.  DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 18 April 2012 (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.