Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious terrorism

:{{la|Religious terrorism}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Religious_terrorism Stats])

:({{Find sources|Religious terrorism}})

The article does not establish the notability of "religious terrorism." Articles already exist on the main topics covered: Islamic terrorism and Aum Shinrikyo. Secondary sources do not tend to link the two, or include the other groups briefly mentioned by the article. BigJim707 (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep but heavily clean up (userfying or projectifying could be an option). It's a bad article, and as you say, much of its content really is about something we already have an article on, but the topic is clearly notable (see eg. Juergensmeyer) and there's juuuust enough for WP:TNT not to be the best option. An article about the commonalities between various religions' terrorism, as taken from reliable sources, would be encyclopedic and informative. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Looking into the history, I find that all the material on Aum Shinrikyo was added by one user, and have removed it wholesale. Still not a good article, but this does address one of the concerns in the nomination. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, this article could cover everything from modern-day Islamic terrorism, to attacks on black churches during the civil rights movements, to abortion clinic bombings/killings by religiously-motivated attackers, to the persecution of Jews throughout history. There would be more than sufficient sources to sustain the article. If it's in a poor current state, go fix that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral: The question, I think, is whether it's possible to treat religious terrorism as a diachronic phenomenon without extended acts of synthesis. Are there, in other words, enough scholarly treatments of religious terrorism in itself, rather than the religious terrorism of this or that country or people, to merit and substantiate a separate article? If there aren't, the article will almost inevitably deteriorate into either a random list of various species and instances of religious terrorism, or into original research. The article as it stands is fairly synthetic, and needs radical surgery. Alexrexpvt (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete: Because Polemical psychobabble is something wikipedia can do without. Also, how hypocritical is it too look at a piece that was blatantly written by someone with a specific agenda in mind, to convince or persuade readers of his own POV, and blithely pronounce it "neutral" "with no discernible POV" ??? This is the hypocrisy that will kill wikipedia, and exactly the flaw that makes it have the laughingstock reputation it has in certain areas. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 10:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

::Has someone "blithely pronounce[d]" the article to be neutral, or did you take my neutral vote (i. e. abstention) to mean that I regarded the article as neutral? Or is it a tacit argument that keeping a POV-pushing article is tantamount to claiming that the article is NPOV? Alexrexpvt (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

:::It's nothing to do with your "neutral vote"; I am saying the article itself is not neutral, it could have no feasibly neutral purpose, and I am therefore urging it to be deleted outright. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - This strikes me as a polemical essay about an encyclopedic topic. Whether it is fixable or should be blown up with an Improvized Pixel Eradicating Device to make way for a balanced article in the future is the main question here, I think. This is probably the sort of hatrack topic that's not ever going to be decent without being written by a couple genuine experts and then fully protected, however... Carrite (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - Upon further review, it's not as bad as I thought it was. Flaws are fixable. Keep. Carrite (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

::Comment: I like your first comment! But the article should at least start out defining what it means by the terms "religion" and "Terrorism" (should be lowercase), which terms it leaves undefined. Then if it did attempt to define these concepts, it would surely be even worse for pov, it already sounds a bit too much like Goebbels' writing since he also loved throwing out these kinds of words in essays meant to be persuasive, at whomever were pissing him off at any given time. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I just read the article on Aum Shinrikyo and it looks more like they were trying to kill people because they wanted them dead, not to terrorize other people. They also tried to do it in secret, unlike most terrorists who often "claim credit" for their acts. Also note that in many parts of the world most people believe in one or another religion, or at least identify themselves as part of a religious community. That doesn't necessarily mean that all acts of terrorism in, say, the Middle East or Ireland, are themselves "religious." BigJim707 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Merge to Terrorism, unless there is another article on motivations for terrorism then merge there. The notability, even the existence, of the topic is not established by the article. Look at the intro. It starts our with the uncited statement: "Religious Terrorism is Terrorism by those whose motivations and aims have a predominant religious character or influence." Then quotes one expert who says: "since 1980 there has been an increase in activity motivated by religion..." Then a government report that talks about: "Terrorist acts in the name of religion and ethnic identity...", not the same thing. Then cites a couple more experts who say: "religion should be considered only one incidental factor..." I don't see a notable topic. However the material should be discussed in a section in the larger article(s). Borock (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GNG, WP:DUE. Islamic terrorism is obviously a form of religious terrorism. Deleting this article would probably result in it being redirected elsewhere, with "Islamic terrorism" being a potential target. We should be countering systemic bias by ensuring we consider topics from a neutral point of view, which we are in danger of not doing by wanting to delete this article. -- Trevj (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:GNG. While the article in its present state may not evidence notability, notability is a property of a topic, not an article draft, and the subject of religous terrorism is one which receives specific coverage in reliable sources. [http://books.google.com/books?id=swJkERVd80cC&pg=PA68&dq=which+religions+incite+terrorism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EXD1UK3fJIP42QWepYCYAg&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=which%20religions%20incite%20terrorism&f=false], [http://books.google.com/books?id=0fooSsaO6rMC&dq=which+religions+incite+terrorism&source=gbs_navlinks_s], [http://books.google.com/books?id=V1xukwRq2cUC&dq=which+religions+terrorism&source=gbs_navlinks_s], [http://books.google.com/books?id=1NgQAQAAIAAJ], [http://books.google.com/books?id=WZdDbmxe_a4C&pg=PR12&dq=which+religions+terrorism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4HD1UOK1HIbF2QXB4IDoBw&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=which%20religions%20terrorism&f=false], [http://books.google.com/books?id=0RYbdOui4gkC&dq=which+religions+terrorism&source=gbs_navlinks_s], .... The nominator's claim that sources (by which he or she should mean "available" sources, not sources listed at the article) on the topic are unavailable is quickly belied by a simple Gbooks search. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

: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.