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.
This is a POV fork of
List of terrorist incidents. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other terrorist incidents. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to List of terrorist incidents.
AlanStalk09:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NOTDATABASE. By the way, I think a lot of OR is happening here. For example: this article lists several attack's motivation as "incel", but
Incel is a general online subculture, and
research claims that this subculture is "not particularly right-wing or white".
Comment: I have observed a recent flurry of editing activity that seems to indicate how hard it is for editors to come to a consensus on what amounts to a right-wing terrorist attack. While
right-wing terrorism is a serious matter, especially after the Capitol and Brazilian Congress attacks, I agree that neither articles have a solid criteria, resulting in a lot of OR and tit-for-tat POV activity, as we have seen with List of left-wing terrorist attacks (
AfD discussion). --
Minoa (
talk)
12:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I've basically posted the same thing at the other AfD, but it applies here as well. This and the other article suffer from over inclusion based on poor grounds. This is just going to be a massive time sink to maintain against POV editing. As Dream Focus says anything useful can be included in List of terrorist incidents. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆
transmissions∆ °
co-ords°
18:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete for the same reason that I gave in the current AfD for the article
List of left-wing terrorist attacks. Namely, mainstream sources do not normally use the joint term "right-wing terrorist", probably because the term "right wing" is ambiguous and means different things to different people and in different countries. Instead they generally use a more precise term to modify "terrorist", such as "Palestinian terrorist" or "eco-terrorist" or "white-supremacist terrorist".
NightHeron (
talk)
19:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I should add, as I did at the left-wing list: please salt this article if it is deleted. The OR problems will reoccur if the article is recreated. --
asilvering (
talk)
03:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Highly subjective metric for a list. Some clear, well-agreed upon (by RSes) examples can be included on
Right-wing terrorism, but we shouldn't be trying to compile a list ourselves. --
Masem (
t)
13:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: I think BilledMammal is right the topic is notable and encyclopedic. But I've also spent hours on this page removing entries and checking for sources in good faith. I can't bring myself to vote delete since I know the article is fixable, but at the same time I think it's important to note that the editors pointing out this page needs, if it is to exist, some editors willing to copyedit it regularly to remove OR and UNDUE content are correct. I'm uncomfortable voting delete on a page because I think it's unmanageable, but I'm also uncomfortable voting keep for the same reason.
TulsaPoliticsFan (
talk)
13:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Unlike "left-wing terrorism", this actually does exist, but IMO it is not important or useful to maintain lists of terrorist attacks broken down by supposed ideology. An all-encompassing list would be better.
Zaathras (
talk)
00:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per my comments at the "List of left-wing terrorist attacks" AfD. Same exact issues apply. On these topics, a list has no value compared to a proper conceptual article, setting aside the OR, its nature as a POV-fork, and other issues.
DFlhb (
talk)
14:39, 4 August 2023 (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.
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.
This is a POV fork of
List of terrorist incidents. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other terrorist incidents. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to List of terrorist incidents.
AlanStalk09:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NOTDATABASE. By the way, I think a lot of OR is happening here. For example: this article lists several attack's motivation as "incel", but
Incel is a general online subculture, and
research claims that this subculture is "not particularly right-wing or white".
Comment: I have observed a recent flurry of editing activity that seems to indicate how hard it is for editors to come to a consensus on what amounts to a right-wing terrorist attack. While
right-wing terrorism is a serious matter, especially after the Capitol and Brazilian Congress attacks, I agree that neither articles have a solid criteria, resulting in a lot of OR and tit-for-tat POV activity, as we have seen with List of left-wing terrorist attacks (
AfD discussion). --
Minoa (
talk)
12:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I've basically posted the same thing at the other AfD, but it applies here as well. This and the other article suffer from over inclusion based on poor grounds. This is just going to be a massive time sink to maintain against POV editing. As Dream Focus says anything useful can be included in List of terrorist incidents. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆
transmissions∆ °
co-ords°
18:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete for the same reason that I gave in the current AfD for the article
List of left-wing terrorist attacks. Namely, mainstream sources do not normally use the joint term "right-wing terrorist", probably because the term "right wing" is ambiguous and means different things to different people and in different countries. Instead they generally use a more precise term to modify "terrorist", such as "Palestinian terrorist" or "eco-terrorist" or "white-supremacist terrorist".
NightHeron (
talk)
19:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I should add, as I did at the left-wing list: please salt this article if it is deleted. The OR problems will reoccur if the article is recreated. --
asilvering (
talk)
03:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Highly subjective metric for a list. Some clear, well-agreed upon (by RSes) examples can be included on
Right-wing terrorism, but we shouldn't be trying to compile a list ourselves. --
Masem (
t)
13:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: I think BilledMammal is right the topic is notable and encyclopedic. But I've also spent hours on this page removing entries and checking for sources in good faith. I can't bring myself to vote delete since I know the article is fixable, but at the same time I think it's important to note that the editors pointing out this page needs, if it is to exist, some editors willing to copyedit it regularly to remove OR and UNDUE content are correct. I'm uncomfortable voting delete on a page because I think it's unmanageable, but I'm also uncomfortable voting keep for the same reason.
TulsaPoliticsFan (
talk)
13:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Unlike "left-wing terrorism", this actually does exist, but IMO it is not important or useful to maintain lists of terrorist attacks broken down by supposed ideology. An all-encompassing list would be better.
Zaathras (
talk)
00:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per my comments at the "List of left-wing terrorist attacks" AfD. Same exact issues apply. On these topics, a list has no value compared to a proper conceptual article, setting aside the OR, its nature as a POV-fork, and other issues.
DFlhb (
talk)
14:39, 4 August 2023 (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.