Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Islamic terrorist organizations

The following discussion comes from Categories for deletion, where it is currently listed as unresolved. It may be reviewed again in the future in the light of evolving standards and guidelines for categorization. 22:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Islamic terrorist organizations

 * The mere existence violates NPOV policies. And apparently, whoever created this category didn't think we needed a Category:Hindu terrorist organizations or a Category:Christian terrorist organizations -- Jmabel | Talk 02:09, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * DeleteAlberuni 18:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * DeleteJayjg 19:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete--Josiah 23:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, as above. (And yes, a complete picture of terrorism would be useful to have.) &#8212; Bill 09:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep --ChrisRuvolo 16:42, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - Terrorism is well defined, and these categories are a natural extension. Nominations is part of extreme agenda-pushing and POV warring within WP. -- Netoholic @ 07:05, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting category jguk 00:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * DELETE. Obviously POV title. (How do you like "Category:Jewish terrorist organizations"?) HistoryBuffEr 03:05, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
 * Keep. NeoJustin 01:07 Nov. 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sarge Baldy 15:06, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, (Question:Is it not happening?) IZAK 10:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Jewbacca 10:46, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * KEEP. How can somebody want to delet this category now that 9/11 happened?--AAAAA 12:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Abstain Important category, but should be renamed Category:Islamic militant organizations. 172 12:49, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Changing terrorists in activists or militants is Newspeak with respect to the victims of their actions. Also, this category provides important information.Gidonb 13:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. keep the whitewash in the bucket not on the pages at Wikipedia. Muslim Terrorist Organizations would be preferrable. Lance6Wins 13:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whilst there's some subjectivity at the fringes, the category as a whole is factual and the membership of any group within it can be tested NPOV with relevant sources. FT2 16:18, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Obviously POV title unless all these organisations clearly refer to themselves as terrorists.--Axon 17:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The term "terrorist" expresses a POV in all cases. John Tinker 22:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. &rarr;Raul654 04:40, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. - POV problem as superbly described by John Tinker, however I can see the problem now: Some terrorist categories will be deleted for NPOV and others not, which would make the discussion even more obscene. I think there should be an overall vote on the use of the word "terrorist" as opposed to the individual plucking of the groups. Why are we each voting 10 times when we are saying one thing that applies ten times? Tarek 07:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete the category. There's no place for POV-laden lists of "terrorists", and I seriously doubt whether any of these organisations would accept the allegation of "terrorism". Shorne 12:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. JamesMLane 22:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It needs to be renamed, because anyone can label any Muslim org as terrorist. I think the category needs to be defined better. I think Islamic militant organization would be a better name.--JuanMuslim 03:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. helohe (talk)  15:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)