Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicle ramming as a terrorism tactic


 * 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 § FreeRangeFrog  croak 20:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Vehicle ramming as a terrorism tactic
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Skookum1 (talk) 05:47, 7 November 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 November 7.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 06:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep see: Tactics of terrorism Notice that many of the sections, Bioterrorism, Nuclear terrorism, Aircraft hijacking lead to free-standing articles parallel to this article on vehicle ramming. The other articles that I have written or edited are not relevant to this AFd.   Inclusion of the [[2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack in this article is well supported by sources.ShulMaven (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply "well supported by sources" is a blatant lie, as an examination of the intial version of that article vs the sources provided will clearly show, and as I have already referred to. The phrases "was a terrorist attack" and "a 25 year old terrorist" you led off with are nowhere in any of the sources provided, it is entirely your own fabrication/interpretation/distortion.  Your track record of terrorism-related articles is of relevance here, as as your attempts to re-introduce SYNTH/POV wordings i.e. more additions of "terrorist attack" and the like; terms which are increasingly avoided in the Canadian media for both events and with good reason, and the government and police items stating that have been widely challenged in the Canadian media and blogspace; your inclusion of it in the creation of this article, which happened on the same day as your attempt to rename the St Jean-sur-Richelieu and also your attempt to reinsert your POV language as as "improve, I hope" and the further claim on the move of the title was "in line with rapidly emerging terminology".  Rapidly emerging by your own propagation of it, is my view of the matter; and in the case of the RJsR "rapidly emerging terminology" about that event is "mental illness", not "terrorism".  I repeat my suspicion that many of the other articles you have created similarly distorted sources or outright fabricated lines, and your dishonesty here and in the edit history supply ample reason for that suspicion.Skookum1 (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a legitimate debate about whether words like "terrorist" can be properly applied to incidents in which a lone individual who drinks deeply at the well of hatred published by a terrorist group but had no direct contact with members of the group can be called a "terrorist", or whether an action must be carried out by a committed, definable organized group. Wikipedia is not the place for such debates. Let's confine ourselves to reliable sources.ShulMaven (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed there is indeed a legitimate debate and a very heated one in Canada about both events, and also about how "terrorist/m" has been used by some for environmental and native groups as well as re anti-Islamic cant; And don't presume to say "let's confine yourselves to reliable sources" when you yourself haven't done that, only imposed your interpretation (SYNTH) of sources, as already pointed out re your initial article's complete fabrication of phrases and terms and your attempt to add "terror" to the title even though it's clear by now that is POV. "Wikipedia is not the place for such debates" is why this article should be deleted, as you are advancing an idea of your own, and have blatantly twisted sources with your own imposed words.  Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda campaigns either, and your creation of this article to go with your attempts yesterday at re-POVizing of the St Jean sur Richelieu article and title is very much relevant to your motives and purposes re all the other "terrorism" articles you have made a career out of.Skookum1 (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is part of a growing global trend. The article is not beyond repair, for POV or otherwise. It appears to me the entire essence of this debate is the definition of the word WP:TERRORIST as are most articles on subjects of this nature. sudo  people  19:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Question - could you summarize the AfD rationale? It looks like you have problems with the POV edits of a particular editor and POV content and/or title of this article. None of the above are reasons for AfD, regardless of whether or not there's a backlog at WP:NPOVN. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 16:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable subject, references, meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic, there are adequeate references provided in the article to prove the topic's notability. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 02:50, 13 November 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.