Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classification of terrorist incidents

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. Sandstein 06:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of terrorist incidents[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An WP:INDISCRIMINATE (WP:NOT) listing of things that could be construed as types of terrorism.

Insofar as classification of terrorist incidents is a thing, in order to keep this from being indiscriminate (and WP:OR), the scope of the subject should be delimited (who classifies? classification based on means or ends?). It also needs to be demonstrated that the topic of classification of terrorism is discussed in sources in detail (WP:GNG).

This is a one Wikipedia editor's original typology of terrorism inappropriately presented in WP:WIKIVOICE in articlespace. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, doesn't pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOR, and WP:NOTDICT. Ajf773 (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see much in the article Terrorism or elsewhere that comprehensively discusses the actual practical techniques used by terrorism, as distinct to more philosophical questions about types of terrorism. So I wonder if some of this information could be repurposed or merged to Terrorism. But currently it looks like it's an article on some kind of classification scheme, but it doesn't specify what that scheme's authority is, and it's not referenced at all. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this article was referenced and better classified, there is a possibility this could be a useful standalone article or at least a part of the Terrorism article. However, in the form it is in now, the article serves no purpose because we cannot even verify if these are official terms to describe methods of terror or something the author thought of himself/herself.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like WP:SYN. This is not a commonly accepted classification of anything, and not a useful list. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2017 (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.