Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Middle East terrorists

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. 22:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Middle East terrorists
--Hooperbloob 03:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Terrorist is value-laden politicized term not suitable for Wikipedia category. Violates NPOV policies, is vague and undefined. The person or authority attributing the title of terrorist should be identified. Replace with Middle East Militants? Alberuni 17:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Useful term and an interesting category. Keep. jguk 23:56, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * DELETE. Obviously POV title. (Would you like "Category:Jewish terrorists"?) HistoryBuffEr 03:00, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
 * Keep, (heard of any Jews blowing themselves up in buses or restaurants lately?) IZAK 10:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * KEEP. Terrorist is not undefined.  Wikipedia has a clear definition of terrorism.  In short, somebody that indiscriminately  attacks civilian targets with violence that ends in deaths, is a terrorist.--AAAAA 12:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * KEEP Stereotek 12:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, unless there is suddenly a "NPOV" "alternative" for an understood term. -- user:zanimum
 * Keep. Changing terrorists in activists or something of the sort is Newspeak with respect to the victims of their actions. Also, this category provides important information.Gidonb 13:38, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. keep the whitewash in the bucket not on the pages at Wikipedia. Lance6Wins 13:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Obviously POV title unless all these organisations clearly refer to themselves as terrorists. --Axon 14:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep--Josiah 14:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * DELETE. xxx Terrorist is a POV of their targets, never a self-appelation.
 * 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 12:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. JamesMLane 22:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)