Deletion of Communist terrorism

Comment: Nomination is completely without merit.  There is no support for SYN, lack of notability or that the idea is a neologism.  "Communist terror" turns up over 30,000 google hits (and the fact that much of it is state terrorism does not diminish the point), "communist terrorism" turns up almost 3,000 google hits and "Maoist terrorism", just to use one possible additional term, turns up 1440 hits.  In the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, communist groups are only second to Islamic.  It has been used in the mainstream media,  see http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1970-9/1970-09-01-CBS-23.html here and http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,837503,00.html?iid=chix-sp here, by http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Singapor.html major encyclopedias, and in academic journals (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0554%28197503%2969%3A1%3C306%3ATCATBC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage here, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-5850(195804)34%3A2%3C157%3AMNN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y here and       http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/facultypages/EdMoise/atroc.html here.  One editor has added citations to the work "Communism and terrorism" by Karl Kautsky (which establish that the article is not SYN), but the nominator keeps deleting them.  The nominator keeps making arguments on the discussion page that much of the search results for "Communist terror" and "communist terrorism" are about terror commited by the former Eastern Bloc nations.  His point is a distinction without a difference, those incidents are state terrorism but they are still "communist terrorism" nonetheless.  The idea that the article is a fringe theory is perhaps the most ridiculous of them all.  Anyone who's heard of the Red Brigade, Revolutionary Organization 17 November|November 17 or FARC know it's communist terrorism; we're not talking about flat earth or little blue men here.  This is plainly a case of  on the nominator's part
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: as per csloat and reasons explained on the Talk:Communist terrorism|talk page. There is  and , with conclusions being drawn that would not last two seconds on their respective main pages. There might be a grain of truth in some of these sources, but two or three users have taken the grain and made it into a whole loaf
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:SYN)

Comment: Non-notable neologism.  The phrase "communist terrorism" is occasionally used to refer to many different things, but there is no clear definition of the term and it is never used in counterterrorism scholarship.  The page is a barely readable hodge-podge of  violations, bringing a number of organizations together under the umbrella, using  theories like Pacepa's ridiculous claim that the KGB created the PLO and making them seem mainstream.  It cites people talking about "Red terror" and combines it with material about theorists like Nechaev and Bakunin (more widely understood as anarchists than communists) and other material.  Nearly every citation I've looked at on the page is taken out of context to try to make a case for "communist terrorism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:FRINGE)