Deletion of Islamic extremist terrorism

Comment: per above and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Nominator is not neutral in trying to delete this article. Nomination describes the article as ''fictitious'', which is patently untrue given the amount of cited facts presented. Said article may have some POV issues which can be corrected. The article is on an important subject matter. While the subject matter is sensitive and objectionable to certain parties, #CENSORED|Wikipedia is not censored
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Why is there Christian extremist terrorism and Islamic extremist terrorism but no Zionist extremist terrorism? Instead, there is Zionist political violence. I see a clear double standard here. Either the Zionist article should be renamed to this convention, or the Christian and Islamic terrorism articles should be renamed to "political violence", i.e. Christian political violence and Islamic political violence.  applies especially to cases such as this. metaspheres
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: metaspheres is right on.  These articles should be kept.  But there is no justification whatsoever, other than home bias, for naming the "Christian", "Zionist" and "Islamic" forms differently.  "Political violence" is probably more appropriate than "terrorism", but the most fundamental thing in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV and  is that they be labelled '''the same'''.  Anything else is hyprocrisy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS)