Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saudi Arabia and state sponsored terrorism

: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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

=[[Saudi Arabia and state sponsored terrorism]]=

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

:({{Find sources|Saudi Arabia and state sponsored terrorism}})

Whether we go by this title or the original "Saudi Arabia and Terrorism" this is a POV laced unbalanced and out of context conglomeration of primary sources and synthesis. I simply cannot see how this subject can't be (or even isn't already) covered in context within wider articles and the subject is so inherently point of view that a neutral article is impossible. So that's a fatal breach of NPOV, SYNTH and UNDUE. Spartaz Humbug! 13:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep The article is not based on primary sources, by "primary sources" if you mean those secret documents which have been added as references, the corresponding claims are all supported by [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding a secondary source] which has been already cited in the article. I can't see any breech of WP:SYNTH. Regarding "the subject is so inherently point of view that a neutral article is impossible", we have already similar articles ("X and terrorism") for several other countries which have little to do with terrorism. --Z 14:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Article is pure POV and also seems to violate WP:SYNTHESIS. - Balph Eubank ✉ 15:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, edit and improve: There seems to be nothing wrong except the POV which has to be corrected a little bit. I don't understand the point for deletion when the article meets the basic criteria. -- Bharathiya (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge to Terrorism in Saudi Arabia. I don't usually like recommending merging at AfD, but while I have no problems with the content of this article, the title is fairly inflammatory. Terrorism in Saudi Arabia could use improvement, and I think merging this article in would improve it. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Observation There is a similarly titled article Pakistan and state sponsored terrorism in WP, which is accepted as a fairly realistic title. In this angle, there should not be any problem with the title of this article.-Rayabhari (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

::Hm, you're right. And I wouldn't be in a rush to see it merged with Terrorism in Pakistan. --BDD (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep Calling this POV misunderstands WP:NPOV. We can neutrally report on accusations made in WP:RS, and there have certainly been allegations of Saudi-sponsored terrorism in reliable sources. I encourage editors with POV or synthesis concerns to tag the sections that concern them and discuss the issue on the talk page. --BDD (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD. A well sourced article that complies with other similiar state terrorism articles we have in :Category:Terrorism committed by country. Mar4d (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2012 (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.