This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related toTerrorism. It is one of manydeletion lists coordinated byWikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page atWP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page atWP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in theedit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding{{subst:delsort|Terrorism|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed bya bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod,CfD,TfD etc.) related to Terrorism. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and{{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with{{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia'sdeletion policy andWP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
The subject of this article, "Hamas external European operations", does not appear to exist as a discrete, reliably defined, or independently recognised topic. A search of reliable secondary sources shows no evidence that this is an established term or organisational structure. As such, the article appears to be aWP:NEO (a neologism invented by editors rather than documented in independent sources) and a case ofWP:OR/WP:SYNTH.
The article also appears to constitute aWP:CFORK/WP:POVFORK, in that it selectively compiles incidents and news reports from various European countries to create the appearance of a unified "European external operations" entity that is not described by the sources. Creating a new article to aggregate disparate material into a novel interpretation violatesWP:SYNTH andWP:NOR, and givesWP:UNDUE weight to a construction and, again, one not supported by independent sources.
Additionally, portions of the article raiseWP:BLPCRIME concerns by presenting allegations about living individuals based largely on primary or marginal sources without the level of high-quality, independent sourcing required.
Regarding sourcing more generally, the article relies heavily on a small number of sources, several of which do not meet the standard of strong, independent, secondary coverage required for establishing notability (seeWP:RS,WP:NOTNEWS, andWP:NOTABLE). The use of primary Israeli government and government-aligned materials, think-tank publications with clear political affiliations such as theFoundation for the Defense of Democracies, material from the US government affiliated and Israeli-alignedCombating Terrorism Center at West Point, andEuronews further underscore the sourcing problems.
The topic does not meetWP:GNG or any subject-specific notability guideline, and because it represents an editor-constructed topic not supported in reliable sources, the article does not warrant a standalone page. Any content that is verifiable, neutral, and supported by high-quality sources can be merged into already-existing and appropriate articles, such as:
Delete this is a collection of unproven allegations that people are "linked" to hamas. in one case it's allegations that someone is "linked" to a weapons cache that is "linked" to an organization that is "linked" to hamas. according to RS, hamas typically doesn't operate outside of Israel & Palestine. calling this hamas's external operations in europe seems like a slight exaggeration. the content from the better sources should be summarized and put in 1 of the articles Smallangryplanet suggested.Rainsage (talk)00:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the page is merely a collation of random news reports from multiple countries that do not constitute what the article title purports exists. It also looks very much like the page was made with an LLM, and theeditor who made it has a habit of making these pages in quick succession that primarily consist of duplicated content apparently for the purpose of emphasizing a particular subject, i.e., POV content forks. And they share the same LLM-like clunky abstract formal writing style which is distinct from how the editor writes in talk responses. In prior edits this editor has left the chatgpt part of urls inserted, and the style of writing and poor quality of sourcing (broken links, links to clearly non-RS sources) further indicate this.Raskolnikov.Rev (talk)21:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was tagged forWP:G5. Technically it meets the criteria, but I think this has the potential for being a useful encyclopedia article. I couldn'tobviously find a good source discussing the topic as a list, just the individual incidents, so I'd rather put the decision out to the wider community to discuss what to do with it.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A trend would be fine for an Islamophobia article, but not for NLIST. NLIST would need to have some semblance of a list in significant secondary coverage, but it need not be complete. ←Metallurgist (talk)04:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's pretty thin gruel, possibly the notable incidents could be a section in the Islamophobia in the UK page, that feels more appropriate than a list of references to papers.Halbared (talk)14:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary and histrionic emotional appeal. Pls provide a legitimate reason as to why this content, which has been covered by multiple sources that fit NLIST, needs to be deleted.Lettlre (talk)01:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the principle that Wikipedia should not keep an article created by a user who was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry weeks earlier.I2Overcometalk11:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, doesn't pass NLIST, and BMB for the non-smartse edits. And as for the Smartse edits, well, one of them just straight up failed verification with the given source & called something an attack in Wikivoice,[1] using a contemporary news report that said it was being investigated to see if it was actually an attack.[2] Now, could it be? Maybe- but an administrator should know to find a source for that material before adding it. This is a very contentious political area, we do not need people throwing the first page of their google results in and saying "close enough", and if these are the type of edits two admins are going to look at and say "okay", well, then I don't think we can maintain a PAG compliantstand alone page, not when we already haveIslamophobia in the United Kingdom. Notable attacks can be discussed there; we don't need a separate article.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸11:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, @Smartse Would it be too great of an imposition for me to request you stop adding contemporaneous news reports, when the investigation was ongoing, to support entries on the list? It's very much veering into original research at this point.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸20:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is very much not original research. There was an arson attack on the mosque; that is not in dispute. The investigation was to determine if it was aterror incident. This is not a list of terror incidents but a list ofattacks and that is unambiguously an attack. And it described as such in reliable sources which talk about it being just one of many attacks, hence the justification for this list.BobFromBrockley (talk)09:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Easykeep. Unambiguously passes NLIST, as the topic of the article "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", as evidenced by the sources post by BobFromBrockley.WP:OR is not a justification for deletion if editing can remove the OR, which it can - simply making structure criterion for inclusion would obviate this criticism. Contra some other comments here, NLIST does not require that the topic of the article be discussed as a list specifically (e.g. a news article saying "here's a list of mosques attacks in the United Kingdom").Katzrockso (talk)08:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with BobFromBrockley and Katzrockso that this topic has been covered in general in many sources, and this does not fit G5 because it was edited by others.Lettlre (talk)01:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every time someone attacks a religious building in a country, is not a reason to have a list of it. None of these incidents were notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, so not a valid navigational list either.DreamFocus15:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at: