Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism
![]() | Points of interest related to Terrorism on Wikipedia: History – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Terrorism. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Terrorism|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Terrorism. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

watch |
List of Terrorism deletion discussions
edit- Genocidal intent of Hamas toward Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I believe this article does not meet notability guidelines. Much of the text is already discussed in Allegations of genocide in the October 7 attacks and Hamas. Parts of this article could be used to expand the Hamas page, or the Criticism of Hamas page instead: the former of which already has a section discussing Hamas' use of violence, and the latter of which already has a section discussing accusations of genocidal intent. Unless there becomes too much info both pages specifically around accusations of genocidal intent to warrant an entire new article about genocidal intent, this page feels redundant. Compare this page to the Gaza genocide article, which largely focuses on discussion and analysis of how actions constitute as genocide. Most of the content and references in this page are simply rehashing attacks which are already discussed in greater depth on other pages. Right now, there is not enough info on this page, or other Wikipedia pages, analyzing accusations of genocidal intent to warrant an entire article. Amtoastintolerant (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 25. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 13:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Besides being a fork of pre-existing articles (those already mentioned above), only 4 sources directly comment on the article's scope of "genocide" or "genocidal intent"' & the rest is either WP:SYNTH or reiterates unrelated information about Hamas. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete the entire article consists of original research, and even if it didn't I believe this subject is better covered in other articles that already exist. (t · c) buidhe 22:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Merge with Allegations of genocide in the October 7 attacks. Despite the article stating the difference, the sources practically cover only that and other general Criticism of Hamas. SITH (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Iranian influence operations in the UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As it was previously tagged as, the article has essay-like and argumentative prose and should be moved to draftspace for incubation AlexBobCharles (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Politics. AlexBobCharles (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Crime, Terrorism, Iran, and United Kingdom. jolielover♥talk 06:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Draftify - contentious topic it's important to treat with care, and notwithstanding WP:NOTESSAY and WP:SYNTH concerns (e.g. in order to weaken and sow disunity within the United Kingdom in lead), currently there are not nearly enough incline citations to support some of the very strong claims in the article. Epsilon.Prota talk 11:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete – Similar reasoning to Epsilon.Prota but different conclusions. I don't think an article whose notability is based on an author's original conclusions, tabloid news, and the opinions of authors publicly opposed to the Iranian government is appropriate. Evidenced claims and allegations of Iranian espionage and interference in British affairs (and vice versa) can be covered in a neutral tone at Iran–United Kingdom relations. Yue🌙 21:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep - Firstly, thank you AlexBobCharles for initating a discussion. I beg to differ with the above, my original conclusions or personal thoughts are unrelated to the article. Regarding Epsilon.Prota's statement, it is not my personal opinion but a reflection of reliable sources e.g Hall's New York Times interview.[1] The citations support the statements. The text is not a synthesis or original thoughts, it entirely a reflection of the citation at the end of the relevant sentence or paragraph. This topic is clearly very notable and has raised multiple headlines over the years. Most recently the United Kingdom has placed Iran and Russia in the top tier of threats.[2][3] Regarding the "enough incline citations to support some of the very strong claims in the article", please look at the list of references: among the sources quotes are reliable sources such as the Financial Times, the BBC, Reuters, the New York Times, The Times, The Guardian... Having read Wikipedia:Notability I will make clear that the article does conform to the standards set in this platform. The sources are secondary sources, Independent of the subject and provide verifiable evidence that this article is notable. The coverage of the issue is significant enough to warrant its own article since the scope of the article is too large and significant to appear soley in the Iran - UK relations page. This issue isn't temporary and has been ongoing for the last couple of years at least. Of course, I'd be happy to engage in proper discussion over wording of sentences. However I do not believe it is on its own enough of a reason to draft or delete the article. I'm attaching some direct quotes from sources.
- Jonathan Hall told the New York Times, the United Kingdom - "Britain’s domestic intelligence agency, MI5, warned that Russia, Iran and China represented the biggest state threats to national security and were outsourcing espionage and sabotage operations designed to disrupt and destabilize Britain." , “Faces ‘Extraordinary’ Threat from Russian and Iranian Plots”. - This is based on the NYT article. "Mr. Hall’s warnings, and those of other senior British officials, stand in sharp contrast to the United States, where President Trump has said little about the efforts of Russia and Iran to destabilize American society, preferring instead to focus on diplomatic overtures to the two countries on issues like the war in Ukraine and Tehran’s nuclear program."
- Reuters which reports on UK Security minister Dan Jarvis Iran statements: "Britain said on Tuesday it would require the Iranian state to register everything it does to exert political influence in the UK, subjecting Tehran to an elevated tier of scrutiny in light of what it said was increasingly aggressive activity." , "(Iran) has become increasingly emboldened, asserting itself more aggressively to advance their objectives and undermine ours. This is evidenced by the fact that direct action against UK targets has substantially increased over recent years," , "It is clear that these plots are a conscious strategy of the Iranian regime to stifle criticism through intimidation and fear. These threats are unacceptable. They must and will be defended against at every turn."
- The Times: "“It’s clear that the IRGC is taking on an extremely active role in supporting Scottish independence across social media" "
- The Times: "Iran has developed a “sophisticated network” across the UK to actively promote propaganda and “plant seeds of suspicion” against the British government, a report has claimed." , "Britain had become a “flashpoint” Iranian influence." , " Iran became the first country to be formally declared a national security threat to the UK." , "NUFDI said the centre was the “main artery of information between Tehran and London” and allowed the regime to “construct a multifaceted web of institutions in the UK, all subservient to the supreme leader of Iran”." , "...it was “planting seeds of suspicion (against their own British government)," , "...rather seek to export the Islamic Revolution to their new homeland”" , "...certainly to weaken support for Britain and the freedoms that we have in the West”" , "A government spokesman said: “Anything that seeks to undermine our democratic society is unacceptable. We consistently work closely with our partners to ensure the safety and security of the public."
- Policy Exchange: "Finally, Iran poses a direct threat to British social cohesion. Iran has a network of active agents and friendly plants within the UK that it has used, and will employ in the future, to infiltrate British society. " , " Iran has sought to use astroturfed social media accounts in the past to support Scottish separatism"
- There's more...
- Thanks! MelikaShokoufandeh (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep The above arguments have convinced me this article is worth keeping. It is supported by multiple high-quality and independent sources (NYT, Reuters, BBC, FT, The Times), establishing clear notability. While the prose may need copy-editing, these are presentation issues and not grounds for deletion. Razgura (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- 2014 Chhattisgarh attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One terrorist attack that's part of a larger conflict. Only news coverage, nothing here to indicate notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Chhattisgarh. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep A terrorist attack is notable. I am seeing a number of AfDs for terrorist attacks in the Global South that are concerning vis a vis attacks in the Global North not getting the same scrutiny. Metallurgist (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Metallurgist unless you can point to a guideline I wasn't aware of which says terrorist attacks are inherently notable, I expect that this vote will be WP:DISCARDed when this discussion is closed. Arguments about the existence of other articles are also discarded almost automatically. Likewise to Thepharoah17's seconding of this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- I dont think they are inherently notable, but this had 16 deaths. Altho I will retract that its a terrorist attack. It looks like it was an attack on
militarypolice forces, which you can go either way on it being terrorism. Metallurgist (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)- Arbitrary quantities are also an improper reason to determine whether a subject is notable. Either there's sustained coverage in secondary sources or there isn't. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am not advising any given number. If 500 people die in an incident and there is for whatever reason no sustained coverage, that isnt notable? Metallurgist (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- That's correct. If you think that there's consensus for death counts to be factored into notability, then by all means propose it at WP:Village pump (policy). But it's not currently how notability is evaluated. It's based on available sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am not advising any given number. If 500 people die in an incident and there is for whatever reason no sustained coverage, that isnt notable? Metallurgist (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Arbitrary quantities are also an improper reason to determine whether a subject is notable. Either there's sustained coverage in secondary sources or there isn't. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- I dont think they are inherently notable, but this had 16 deaths. Altho I will retract that its a terrorist attack. It looks like it was an attack on
- Metallurgist unless you can point to a guideline I wasn't aware of which says terrorist attacks are inherently notable, I expect that this vote will be WP:DISCARDed when this discussion is closed. Arguments about the existence of other articles are also discarded almost automatically. Likewise to Thepharoah17's seconding of this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per Metallurgist. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge to Naxalite–Maoist insurgency. I also found this [1] and this [2] in my BEFORE. Having said that, I agree with Thebiguglyalien's position that there is no inherent notability for terrorist attacks, regardless of casualty numbers. Chetsford (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC); edited 23:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC); edited 23:46, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a new suggestion to possibly Merge this article. I don't see policy-based discussions from anyone or any review of sources which would also be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:EVENT. I see no evidence of lasting coverage or impact. We don't have an article for every deadly event on WP. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NEVENT for lack of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:DIVERSE sourcing. It's a rather minor incident too in relation to the broader topic of the Naxalite–Maoist insurgency. Focusing on it there would be WP:UNDUE.4meter4 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See previous relisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: Have edited main article to include coverage on aftermaths of the case, including run of case in Special SIT Court, appeal in HC and continued sustenance of the statement. Please see [4][5] or copy of HC judgement here[6]
- 2019 Indelimane attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One terrorist attack that's part of a larger conflict. Only news coverage, nothing here to indicate notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Africa. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Merge to Ménaka Region. 54 people being killed somewhere seems appropriate for a regional history at least. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep I am concerned with the number of AFDs for terrrorist attacks in the Global South that seem to diminish the notability of people living there. This article does need expansion and more sources, but I cant see how 54 dead in a terrorist attack is not notable. This reflects a bias of lack of reporting in these countries and lack of interest by Western media, which is traditionally used to establish notability. Metallurgist (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep I just added an {{expand French}} template. In addition, there's the article List of massacres during the Mali War, where it should be listed. Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between editors advocating Keep and a proposed Merge. A source review would help decide the closure outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect to List of massacres during the Mali War per WP:ATD. We should cover this in the context of the larger war which we can do at this list. Right now there is no evidence that WP:NEVENT is met to justify a standalone article. The coverage at the French article is all pretty much within a one week window showing a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the event. 4meter4 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Proposals
edit- ^ Dearden, Lizzie; Landler, Mark (2025-06-06). "U.K. Faces 'Extraordinary' Threat From Russian and Iranian Plots, Official Warns". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2025-06-28.
- ^ "UK launches Foreign Influence Registration Scheme". United Kingdom Government.
- ^ "Client Challenge". www.ft.com. Retrieved 2025-08-20.
- ^ https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/11-crpf-personnel-killed-in-naxal-attack-in-chhattisgarh/article17446850.ece
- ^ https://newsarenaindia.com/states/chhattisgarh-hc-naxal-ambush-poses-threat-to-national-secur/36999
- ^ https://highcourt.cg.gov.in/Afr/courtJudgementandAFR/2025/feb/CRA825_24(18.02.25)_4.pdf