Deletion of Christian terrorism (2nd nomination)

Comment: per Bastun and E.M.Gregory. As  |synthesis and and |fringe views presented on a par with mainstream views and   and giving |false balance. Further the ''very basic definition or what is implied or what is Christian Terrorism is not yet defined'' despite  over 3 months of mediation now suspended and this article has been there for ages almost a decade over 11 years.''Further no Global view of Christian Terrorism'' is given the article a maze of local conflicts which are Ethnic nationalism|ethno-nationalist conflicts ,insurgencies  which are clearly not Religious and in no way can the violence be justified by religion or any tenat of religion.All these local have standalone articles which is fine but to club all of them together as Christian Terrorism is |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:FRINGE||WP:UNDUE||WP:GEVAL||WP:OR)

Comment: Those saying to work on the article/clean it up - yes, that'd be great, if people would actually work on it, or could work on it without every edit being subject to argument and even mediation.  There are very few people who have ever bothered working on the article, except those pushing a POV agenda to claim some conflict or event is Christian terrorism,  and the article is very definitely subject to |ownership.  Really - look at Christian_terrorism#Northern_Ireland_paramilitaries|this section. A welter of sources (14 listed!) stating it's an ethno-nationalist conflict, but we get a significant chunk of the article included because an editor managed to find four people saying the opposite.  A clear breach of  and .  If you're voting to keep the article, then please start work on it now
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN||WP:UNDUE||WP:GEVAL)

Comment: This article is a |NPOV mess involving |synthesis and |fringe views presented on a par with mainstream views, in contravention of  and giving |false balance.  As an example, conflicts such as The Troubles were ethno-nationalist in nature, and are described as such by the '''vast''' majority of expert commentators. The existence of remarks by a tiny minority of commentators claiming it was partly religious in nature are used to justify the inclusion of a whole section on The Troubles in the article.  "As Per MOS if a group calls itself Christian it will be called Christian on Wikipedia." - quite possibly.  But none of the various IRAs, the INLA, or the vast majority of Loyalist terrorists identified themselves as "Christian".  The Orange groups that apparently did call themselves Christian had so minor a role they barely featured.  By the same token, Anders Breivik described himself as "not very religious", but gets included?  Likewise, much of the Indian events and actors seem - on the evidence presented in the article - to be unsourced, only peripherally touching on Christianity, or terrorism for that matter. Ultimately, the article seems to be a collection of disjointed events that might, in some cases, involve some people who might be Christians, and/or might be terrorists, with not that many reliable sources to back up the assertions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:SYNTH||WP:FRINGE||WP:UNDUE||WP:GEVAL)

Comment: This article exists for exactly one reason: to serve as a . Do other religions have similar articles? . (And I shouldn't have to belabor the obvious, that Jesus was a pacifist, whereas the founders of some other religions were decidedly not, and hence any alleged "Christians" committing terrorism are |bullshitting
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:BULLSHIT)

Comment: , involving ,  and some serious .  To put this disgrace of an article together, editors roped together Guy Fawkes' failed participation in an international power struggle, the racism of the Ku Klux Klan, Lebanon's Maronite, Sunni, Shia power struggle, and even - Lord help us - Anders Behring Breivik.  If that isn't enough unrelated material hung on this , the article wades into the intricate complexities of hill tribes, the Hindu expansion, colonization, identity and power in eastern India.  Problem is that there is little beyond a couple of opinion columns and the fact that individuals and groups of of Christian background were involved in movements with little else connecting them.  Certainly no body of theoretical work on the relationship between Christianity and the choice terrorism as a tactic is cited.  Nor am I aware that such a literature exists
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:CHERRYPICKING||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Obviously, the article is an  mess. However, that's not really a reason for deletion of the entire article. Of course it needs cleanup and sections should be removed and added, but I think that it is necessary to keep this article. There are articles on Buddhism and violence|Buddhist terrorism, Hindu terrorism, Islamic terrorism, and Jewish terrorism. Deleting this article, in my opinion, would illustrate ''more'' bias. Perhaps it should be a Collaboration of the Week at some point? I think that would help this article, but deleting is not the best option
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: The nominating statement is flawed as it is the editor's ''opinion'' that Christianity had nothing to do with the acts. Also, it seems  wasn't done. https://books.google.ca/books?id=5WrJAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA60&dq=%22christian+terrorism%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kQIUVcTqIdXgoASGiIGwCA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22christian%20terrorism%22&f=false, https://books.google.ca/books?id=LwF93ydvZugC&pg=PA91&dq=%22christian+terrorism%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kgMUVZL_ApPtoATrj4CABQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22christian%20terrorism%22&f=false, https://books.google.ca/books?id=wXUTr99PO_0C&pg=PA9&dq=%22christian+terrorism%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kgMUVZL_ApPtoATrj4CABQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22christian%20terrorism%22&f=false
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: per arguments already raised here and in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_terrorism|earlier nomination, and because it's obviously an important, |verifiably |notable topic. Just because the !votes here |don't like it and would rather not believe it's a real thing, it 2011 Norway attacks|absolutely is and definitely deserves discussion in any unbiased encyclopedic source
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)