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. nomination withdrawn NW (Talk) 00:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The terrorists have won[edit]

The terrorists have won (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources provided which discuss the topic. There seem to have been lots of examples before but they have been removed. Only ref is a dead link. This is a real expression, of course, but it goes back way before 2001 -- contrary to what the article says. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn since sources have been found which establish the notability of the phrase, inaccurate information has been removed from the article, and work is starting on adding well sourced material. I'm sorry I was hasty in nominating it, but it was a very bad article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query Any idea why massive sections of the article were removed around July of 2007? With those reinserted, the article could certainly be salvaged. Outback the koala (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I just blundered upon it checking out some of the anti-terrorism/civil-liberties related articles. If just one good source could be found which discusses the history and meaning of the expression (not just examples of its use) I would gladly vote to keep the article. I have heard this said since the 1980s, so the statement in the article saying it started in 2001 is clearly wrong, as well as now uncited. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll see what I can do about sources. No promises :-) Outback the koala (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Came up with this, which looks very promising. And this, which looks like a blog of some kind- not sure. I'll keep looking around, but that LA times article might be the ticket. Outback the koala (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out: [Google news archive. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks I will. Outback the koala (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that LA Times article establishes notability. I would withdraw the nomination but if I did that the deletionists would win. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I have 2 very good ones. Clearly seems to provide what we need this and this. Outback the koala (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Good to see others have a sense of humor! XD. Glad I could help. Outback the koala (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bed now, but I will work on the article soon. I did not nominate it for the purpose of saving it, although I probably should have checked out Google first. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If you're reading the article now ("'...the terrorists have won', or '...then the terrorists win' is a rhetorical phrase which was widely used in the wake of the September 11 attacks in the United States.") and saying "WTF?", there used to be more to it [1]. The title has always been incredibly misleading-- the sentiment has never been that "the terrorists have won", but rather a cliche to the effect that "If we do such-and-such out of fear of terrorism, then the terrorists will have succeeded in disrupting our way of life". The phrase "...then the terrorists will have won" was notable during the first years after 9/11, so no delete, but I can't vote to keep this piece-of-crap article either. Perhaps global terrorism has made me indecisive. Mandsford (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a quote which explains the phrase. Outback convinced me that the article should be kept. I am working on it now, although I have other things to do which is slowing me down. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2010 (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.