Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anal jihad


 * 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 speedy delete. Look, it's WP:SNOWing. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Anal jihad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Neologism that makes no claim about significance or notability. Wikipedia does not write articles about obscure neologisms. Wikipedia is not a dictionary LK (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete according to latest search results(clicking on the links above). Zero mention in JSTOR, zero mention in google scholar, Zero mention in google books, zero mention in newspapers, and only 20 stories in news all of which are offshoots of one story, which comes from unreliable source. Keeping this will be a complete mockery of policy and set a precedent for inclusion of complete lies into wikipedia. Anyone who says there are "reliable" sources supporting this should list them with his comment so that others can examine the sources and take them to the reliable source noticeboard FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete unless much better sourcing can be brought forward. Strikes me as a cheap slur. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hilariously (or offensively) entitled as it is, there are sufficient reliable sources discussing the subject by that exact name. Pax 06:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Violates NPOV, and cannot be edited into a neutral article because there simply are no sources to support such an aericle. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The term has very little currency, broadly, it fails GNG. Citations themself maintain that it is a hoax, for a hoax to warrant an article, more notability in reliable sources needs to be demonstrated. -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail  13:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:SNOWCLOSE This article is based entirely on a source with an anti-Muslim Brotherhood COI and an Onion-like satirical letter Rhoark (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Those sources do not (now) appear in the article.-- Auric    talk  12:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete preposterous article. It's possible to have articles on hoaxes or indeed on misconceptions touted by anti-Muslim activists (e.g Moon god Allah), but this is far too trivial and poorly supported. At most it could have a sentence in an article discussing Islamic views of homosexuality or anal sex. Paul B (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - As funny as it is -as noted above it just seems to be a slur, So unless better sources can be found I'll have to go with Delete. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. NPOV. Most likely doesn't even exist. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. Ridiculous and offensive, it's obviously created to be provocative, it has no encyclopedic value. We try not to have articles that are merely punchlines to a joke. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Inherently POV phrasing for a non-notable neologism. Unencyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge - to Jihad or related articles.-- Auric    talk  12:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's rationale. Having reviewed the linked sources for the article, I must also note that several of them do not directly support the basic premise of the article, but are tangentially related to it, e.g., anal sex for the purpose of expanding one's horizons to accept a suicide bomb.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.