Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terror (2nd nomination)

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. Editors may wish to discuss proposals for renaming. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- This is an encyclopedic article, not a dictionary entry. See the wiktionary entry for comparison. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – as creator of article. The topic is not in Category:English words but in Category:Violence, where I have now moved it. In the previous AfD discussion it was argued that the topic is a WP:POVFORK of terrorism. This is not the case; terror has a long history that extends far earlier then modern terrorism was even invented. The difference between terrorism and terror can be expressed by a Russian reversal: If you assassinate the president, it is terrorism; if the president assassinates you, it is terror.

The article has suffered from very poor maintenance and povish editing. I have restored all deleted content and removed attempts to create. dictionary definition. The new version is here. Please see that the content is not removed before this AfD runs out. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 09:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 09:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A common word of this kind should not be a red-link. The topic of ideological intimidation, purges and violence is certainly notable. Warden (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree with Warden. Such a notable term should not be subject to deletion. Also, a valid reason has not been given for deletion. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The history of this article shows the problem - its relation to the Terrorism article entirely. POVForks are not valid articles, and this ia very clear such fork, and deletable on that specific ground. 'Keep" !votes which do not dispute this fact are just "votes" alas, and do not negate policy-based arguments for deletion. POVforks do, indeed, have "content" but that does not change their nature. That "Terror" is a notable topic does not negate the fact that "terrorism" is already an article, and is the same topic! That the POV fork has been "expanded" does not negate WP policies about such forks. Collect (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic here is different from that of the terrorism article. The latter refers to modern terrorism - bombing and acts of violence by groups such as the IRA and Al Quaeda. This topic is more about political repression such as the purges of the Jacobins and Stalin. Given that these are both huge topics, we would be overloading the articles to try to treat them together. Warden (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. It's a legitimate topic and sufficiently distinct from terrorism so that it might make sense to write a separate article on it. Weak because I don't really see all that much potential without significant overlap with terrorism, Le terreur and probably a few other articles as well. Still, if there are serious problems (e.g. the article might turn into a POV fork), redirecting to an article that discusses terror (maybe a section of terrorism or Le terreur) will be the correct solution. Hans Adler 22:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Rename. This is not the primary meaning of "terror" - that is clearly "fear". Terror (disambiguation) should be moved to Terror and the current article to Terror (political concept) or similar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or rename as Necrothesp). Though not an ideally constructed article, this is about something more than terrorism. Both the Reign of Terror and Stalin's purges were acts of a state on its citizens, whereas terrorism concernes the acts of insurgents to acheive political ends by coersing the state to accede to theri demands. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—I just can't see how this article violates wp:notdic. At least some of the sources used do seem to establish the encyclopedic notability of the concept of terror itself. Also, I would be fine with Necrothesp's rename proposal. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 21:30, 22 December 2011 (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.