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 of the debate was delete. -- Drini 04:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Left-wing terrorism[edit]

Irremediably prejudiced in its concept and preposterously biased (also notice that a substantial part of the content was added by anon editors.) Both this and the Right-wing terrorism page have to go, definitely. A more comprehensive article addressing general features of Political terrorism (expanding the current one) would be more than enough. Xemoi 19:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. I completely disagree. POV is not a reason to delete articles, and the phenomenon of both right-wing and left-wing terrorism have existed throughout history. They are certainly worthy of their own articles. Aplomado ^talk 19:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. As has already been discussed, the sole intention of this "article" is clearly to push for a politically sectarian point. It's not just about POV, but also the original idea, the article's name, the disputed examples, the inevitable and arbitrary attribution of a left- or right- wing ideology to this or that "terrorist" group, etc. I wouldn't object to a merge into Political terrorism (as has been suggested), though. Justice III 19:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete.E.Cogoy 20:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. Little attempt has been made to resolve the POV problems (if indeed they exist) on the talk page). There is a posible arguement for merging and turning into redirect rather then deleting (though I'm not 100% convinced) but the content is realitivly sound.--JK the unwise 20:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Again - it isn't SIMPLY about POV, but the very nature of the article. And most of the real POV and distortion of facts was added in an authoritarian way and without justification or proper sources exactly by yourself, JK, so don't pretend it isn't there. But as I said, it isn't just a matter of factual accuracy, it's worse.Justice III 20:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete More POV problems here, as in the right-wing one. I don't see how you arrive at the definitions. Why are Palestinians or Irish considered "left wing"? They're not generally socialists. Fan1967 20:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong delete. Any categorisation into "left-wing" or "right-wing" is inherently POV, since the use of these terms is disputed in many cases. Having this categorisation in an article title itself is even worse, and will inevitably lead to pointless edit wars (and indeed cases where it simply isn't clear which -- if either -- of left-wing terrorism and right-wing terrorism an organization should be listed on). Cadr 21:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Couldn't agree more with Cadr. -- WGee 00:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom--Tbeatty 01:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. The problem isn't the content per se, but that the topical description begs the question. The editors should consider restructuring things and either folding it into other articles on terrorism or creating a new one around "political pretexts for terrorism" or some such title. While I appreciate the effort of creating balance, I don't think it'll work here. --Leifern 02:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete As per above. Ultramarine 03:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Rebecca 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete POV Trash. michael ^talk 06:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per above -- I@n ≡ talk 09:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong delete. Hauser 10:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Terrorists blow things up because they like the "KABOOM". What excuse they use is irrelevent. Rick Norwood 15:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong delete per above. 1652186 17:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge into political terrorism. There is some useful information in this article, and the term is present in serious discussion (see Google Books). Warofdreams talk 22:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge into political terrorism. --Aldux 23:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, what Cadr said --Bletch 23:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete unnecessary division of terrorism into groups which brings unnecessary POV.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete --cj | talk 04:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge into political terrorism. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep or merge POV could be fixed.  Grue  14:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge into political terrorism, as Jmabel. Tazmaniacs 18:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • in fact, merge into terrorism. "Political terrorism" is a pleonasm and should be merged into terrorism. Tazmaniacs 18:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Title alone is POV: merge into political terrorism. Sandy 00:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge into political terrorism; a word with significant current use [1]. Ziggurat 03:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[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.