Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Islam-related terrorist attacks

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. Consensus is that this is a content fork of List of Islamist terrorist attacks with unclear inclusion criteria. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islam-related terrorist attacks[edit]

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

Highly speculative list that leaves a lot of ambiguity. I do not recall the UK or Russian governments discount "Islamist" backgrounds in recent attacks. For London this is still undecided. Where do you draw the line and who will decide if something is islamist or not? And why do we have a list of muslim terror attacks separate from non-muslim terror attacks? I find that borderline racist. If we are talking about claims that some of those attacks were perpetrated by what the media has called "petty criminals with low life success" who happen to be muslims and pledge allegiance to ISIS (which is often unclear), this may still be Islamist or Islamism-inspired?! This list has too many grey areas to ever be reliable and factual. In likely conflict with WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, WP:!TRUTHFINDERS. Therefore delete. Jake Brockman (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Nec ad omne clarum facinus audaces Jakis manus Stabuli fugavit turpis Augise labor." English→Seneca, Hercules Furens vv. 247-248, tr. by Frank Miller.84.73.134.206 (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@84.73.134.206: Explain what this has to do with this discussion, or I'll be removing it. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on Jake's user page that he's fluent in Latin. I like his argument, but I believe that freeing WP from racist stereotypes is an immense task, like Hercules cleaning the Augean Stables. The quote means: "nor did Jake's hands, bold to attempt all glorious deeds, shirk the foul labour of the Augean stalls.". Feel free to remove it.84.73.134.206 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as some sort of weird content fork of List of Islamist terrorist attacks. The point here is spectacularly unclear; attacks by Muslims that aren't considered terrorists? Terrorists that do not declare a strictly religious motivation for committing the act? The purpose of a list is to list things that are alike, that can be grouped together and noted for their sameness. This seems to attempt to classify things by what they are not. ValarianB (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new list includes the attacks perpetrated by Muslims not Islamists to evade the uncertainty of motives ! The article does not mean racism because Islam is not a race, and it only documents incidents ! There is no need to call people racists just for creating a Wikipedia page to list incidents of people being killed and massacred by "petty criminals with low life success who happen to be Muslims and pledge allegiance to ISIS", The notification for deletion is utter nonsense combined with pathetic justifications, users argue not to include the attacks under the "Islamist attacks" so the solution for this political correctness is to categorize the incidents into a new list of "Islam-related attacks" !! LeoHsn (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: LeoHsn (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete List based on unclear criteria, entries selected by the author in an indiscriminate way. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Exemplo347: "unclear criteria, entries selected by the author in an indiscriminate way" hahahahahahaha !!! LeoHsn (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny because it's true. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Exemplo347: you are a joke ! keep up the shameful justifications ... hahahahahahahaha ! LeoHsn (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read WP:NPA sometime. Stick to policy-based discussion like everyone else. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We only respect people who deserve to be respected !!! respect is earned from others spontaneously not by POLICIES !! LeoHsn (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well let me know if you have a comment to make that is based on Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually it is difficult sometimes to pin an exact violation of WP policy to an article. Some just smell bad, like this one. I'd go for the risk of becoming a POV fork & the lack of suitable inclusion criteria.TheLongTone (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) (Personal attack removed)

I would create a new page called "Religion of peace strikes again", that would be cool, to list the incidents which are not included under the "ISLAMIST" criteria ! or name it as "List of terror attacks perpetrated by petty criminals with low life success who happen to be muslims and pledge allegiance to ISIS" !! You can choose either one in order to document the attacks on Egyptian churches and other ramming attacks perpetrated by peaceful Muslims ! LeoHsn (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jake Brockman says it all, really. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unencyclopedic WP:POVFORK - "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page...another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view". AusLondonder (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bragging while giving your pathetic justifications which are the same used in the page of Islamist attacks, readers would feel sick about the fact that Wikipedia does not categorize Nice, London, Stockholm, Cairo church attacks into the list of attacks perpetrated by "petty criminals with low life success who happen to be muslims and pledge allegiance to ISIS". These type of editors make Wikipedia biased and unreliable source because of subjective, fact twisting and terms manipulating cheap tactics used by certain editors who explicitly come from Pakistan or East London who "happen to be Muslims themselves", therefore they call people racists to speak the truth regarding the massacres perpetrated by Muslims ! Anyway, if this pathetic discussion comes to delete the article, I would like to tell you that each attack has its own article. So no one needs your pathetic approval to document all those attacks ! LeoHsn (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not from Pakistan nor East London. AusLondonder (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A classic POVFORK. If it survives this AfD, I will load it with every "Islam-related terrorist attack" committed by Christian, Jewish, or Hindu terrorists against Muslims or Islamic shrines. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Every neutral editor before you have voted delete. But, if you want to add Christian, Jew and Hindus, I don't know why will keep out violence against Shias, Hazaras, Sufis and Ahmadiyas by Sunnis. Marvellous Spider-Man 07:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And we are done here. L3X1 (distant write) 21:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thoroughly permeated with POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CFORK and unspecified list selection criteria. Ajf773 (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The number of those attacks is significant and keeps rising, perhaps they deserve to be classified on this page. Ralphw (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already an article for that: List of Islamist terrorist attacks. We don't need two. 03:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant and useful list. clearly needed to navigate the never ending additions to this list sadly.BabbaQ (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably also thinking of List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Eperoton (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. The list's description reads: "attacks perpetrated by Muslims who might have different motives than an Islamist." Editors, when creating lists, don't have the ability to decide what the motive might or might not have been or why seemingly unrelated motives are definitively related. There do not seem to be reliable sources which refer to "Islam-related terror attacks that possibly have different motives than Islamists" as an actual accepted term in counterterrorism studies or simple mainstream media terminology. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:15, 18 April 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.