Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyroterrorism (2nd nomination)

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. If someone feels strongly about a merge, I will supply them the deleted content at their request. Eluchil404 06:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyroterrorism

This article was speedy deleted during its first AfD as a hoax. DRV overturned as "hoax" is not a CSD criterion, especially for articles with sources. Still, Delete, given notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 14:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure whether you can define this as a 'hoax', but it's definitely an unverifiable neologism which seems to have no wide usage. Google picks up a few hundred hits, but none that I'd consider as being a reliable source. Tx17777 14:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient coverage and sources are cited to make me think this is more than a random neologism. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow those cited sources, the only ones which actually mention the word appear to be little more than blogs. The reputable news organizations cited make no mention of the term, and all the google hits also appear to be blogs or other similar sites. You can argue this term is more that just a neologism only if you can find some reputable newsworthy or academic sources that use the term "pyroterrorism", but for now, this appears to be nothing more than a sensationalist term for arson. Tx17777 17:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged and redirect to arson. As a term there are very few uses of "pyroterrorism" outside blogs. There are a handful of instances such as Greece and Australia where the word "terrorism" has been bandied about in relation to human-set fires, but it's not clear that anyone has ever been prosecuted under a terrorism charge for setting a fire. Academic study of the issue seems quite limited (given that pyroterrorism vs. arson is essentially a matter of motive rather than means or effect). --Dhartung | Talk 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Convicted is, I hope, close enough to prosecuted for us. GRBerry 19:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The use of fire for criminal purposes falls under the accepted terms "arson" and "terrorism". I doubt terrorism by arson meets WP:V and WP:NOTE, but even if it did, it should be added into one or both of those existing articles. I see no need for an article on something called "pyroterrorism"(?). If it is "more than a random neologism", why is neither the term nor the subject mentioned anywhere in the existing terrorism article? - Neparis 22:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, otherwise redirect to terrorism or arson. -RiverHockey 20:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism, attempt of the media to sell a new shocking word. There's 1 occurence of the term on Google scholar. The traditional term serves quite well. Last but not least, the text of the article is not quite what one would expect from an encyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 03:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again As the original nominator on AfD #1, I still don't see this as worth having. Not notable term. Again, look at the lack of sources. Please review my complete failure to find anything on AfD #1. Also, protect for now vs. recreation. • Lawrence Cohen 05:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to arson per Dhartung.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per WP:NEO, we should avoid having articles on neologisms. And I don't see enough to justify an article on the term. Arson or Tactics of terrorism would seem appropriate locations to merge to. The one person from our Wikiproject on Terrorism who showed up to DRV preferred Arson; I don't have strong opinions. There is enough sourcing available, generally linked in the article or the DRV, to support a merge and redirect. GRBerry 19:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to arson 132.205.99.122 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a rather silly neologism. Artw 21:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.