Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Terrorism. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject 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 at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP: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:
  1. 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 the edit 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.
  2. 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.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a 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's deletion policy and WP: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:
watch

List of Terrorism deletion discussions

2011 Tel Aviv truck attack


2011 Tel Aviv truck attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LASTING, and the coverage of the event is only nation-wide, and it does not have critical coverage, so it also fails WP:NEVENT in that regard. Zalaraz (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  • keep there was international coverage , including 5 years after the fact . the article should be expanded not deleted. Rainsage (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
    The Wall Street Journal article just mentions the events off-handedly in one paragraph, it is not comparing or contrasting in any significant way. The information we could add from this news article to this article is just "The event was compared to other similar truck-related attacks by Wall Street Journal". The NYT article is also not WP:SIGCOV since it only mentions the event in passing. The broader effects on Israeli society are connected to the Second Intifada, and not this attack. Thus, this event does indeed fail WP:LASTING, since WP:LASTING only counts WP:SIGCOV. As WP:LASTING says, "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance." This clearly has not been the case here. Two mentions in two years, even if they were WP:SIGCOV, don't automatically establish long term notability for events. Zalaraz (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
merge updating my opinion per gidonb and Pbritti. it looks like most of the encyclopedic information about this event is already included in 2011 Nakba Day, so this article can be merged there. Rainsage (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
i can't find the attack mentioned in PMC4267802; can you share the quote that mentions it? Rainsage (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
It still is not notable unless it has gotten coverage outside of the event, and these are just sources from 2011. Zalaraz (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plenty of sources and absolutely no concern with LASTING. That said, the article is short. If this can be completely included somewhere I would consider. Default should be keep though. gidonb (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak keep based on what's available and to avoid feeding our critics. The minimum effort before nomination is to look for news articles. Bearian (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
    You shouldn't assume that someone didn't do a WP:BEFORE without any evidence to back it up. Also, some people possibly being offended by the deletion of this page is not a good reason to keep it. R3YBOl (🌲) 21:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to have more than enough sources to be notable, including international sources and sources that analyse the attack (like the JTA and NYT articles listed above). NHCLS (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is sourcing to verify that the event occurred, but not enough to justify a standalone article. Most of the sources are short reports from 2011 describing the attack or routine developments in the resulting criminal case. The two later articles do not provide WP:SIGCOV of this event and merely list or briefly reference it when discussing vehicle attacks more generally. That is insufficient under WP:LASTING, which looks for continued substantial treatment rather than isolated retrospective mentions. Also uses WP:CONTENTIOUS words. Dualpendel (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: The sourcing speaks to this being sufficiently notable to warrant encyclopedic coverage. However, I think LASTING does present a fairly high hurdle for a small-scale attack to clear. Given that this attack was part of a series of similar ramming attacks during a defined period in the late 2000s and early 2010s, a list of such attacks might be a more suitable place for coverage. However, in the absence of such a list, retention seems preferable. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. This appears to be a case of WP:NOTNEWS rather than an event with demonstrated encyclopaedic significance. Coverage of the attack, inducement, and conviction belongs to one finite sequence of routine news reporting. The later WSJ and NYT references are not substantial enough to cure the absence of lasting coverage, and the broader significance discussed in those articles concerns vehicle-ramming attacks or Israeli security generally, not this incident specifically. The article consequently fails WP:NEVENT and WP:LASTING. R3YBOl (🌲) 21:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete – There is a conflation of the number and international reach of contemporary reports with event notability by those voting to keep. The sources outside of the initial period of the attack do not analyze the attack's particular effects, historical importance, or wider significance. WP:NEVENT requires more than an initial burst of coverage. A separate article is unwarranted because the topic has limited encyclopedic content and the event has not become a recurring case study in reliable sources. Accesscrawl (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely failed to have any WP:LASTING impact. Segaton (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Rainsage and Bearian. —Biosketch (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Clement Rodney Hampton-El


Clement Rodney Hampton-El (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to 1993 New York City landmark bomb plot because there is very little content in this article (which is about one of the defendants), and the subject of the article itself does not appear to meet WP:GNG. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

2026 White House plot


2026 White House plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of lasting significance and thus unlikely to have more than routine coverage, even presently. An event that did not occur is unlikely to be historically significant, and the information can easily go into UFC Freedom 250#Aftermath or a presumptive section on security. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep: this was an attempted terrorist insurrection, which is significant. ~2026-35348-44 (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC) (Oh Christ I forgot to mention my pronouns here)!
It doesn't look to have reached "attempted" -- discussed, planned, intended maybe, but not attempted. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Security incidents involving Donald Trump. While a federal indictment involving arrests and a plot to target a White House event does qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia, a standalone article feels premature WP:TOOSOON. At this early stage, much of the information are DOJ affidavits and early media reporting which would lead the article to become speculative. Merging it helps preserve the factual record while it is still in development before deciding if a standalone article is warranted WP:BREAKING. MissBVCC (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Security incidents involving Donald Trump. Not likely to become notable in the long-term. Based on available public evidence, it is a bunch of kids angrily venting their frustrations on Signal group chats, as opposed to an actual terror plot from an organized group. If something more substantial comes out, then Wikipedia can restart this discussion.

— Tha†emoover†here (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep Firstly this was a significant plot. We shouldn’t be racing to delete this article. Especially when we can always delete it later if we decide that’s necessary. This is an ongoing investigation into something that was quite significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35834-40 (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)


  • Keep There are several plots with Wikipedia pages from the GWOT days on here so I don’t see why this wouldn’t fit. Also there are over 20 individuals involved so the arrests are most likely to drop in providing more coverage. And this is a sophisticated case that will go to trial so there will be more news about this case when trials happen. This case will absolutely have sustained coverage. So just wait.

Remember the Alvadrdo ICE facility attack’s Wikipedia article was deleted until it got readded after the Dallas terror attack in September. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F18Pilot (talk • contribs) 04:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

"will absolutely have sustained coverage" tells me that it has no coverage now, so it should be deleted. Wikipedia doesn't delete or keep articles based on precedent, nor does it rely on predictions. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Will have sustained coverage means that it already has coverage and will have more continuing coverage, many other people have said that it won’t have continued coverage in the future. This is a response to them that it will. F18Pilot (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge or delete at best due to the recency of this event I would cite WP:NOTNEWS for my opposition and the lack of information on this concerns me on the grounds of WP:GNG. As has been alluded to above we barely even know if this is real or not. There's too much speculation for page right now. AadamentAardvark (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is mind-boggling how many of these attempted events against Trump there have been. For the reader, separating them all out makes it hard to gather knowledge of the larger context. But I see May 2026 White House shooting has already had two no consensus AfDs. There's not one right answer as to this one either.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposals