Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad al-nikah (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 no consensus defaulting to keep. The previous AfD which was discussed only shortly before this renomination had been running for 30 days two weeks, and I cannot find any new arguments in this discussion. De728631 (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Jihad al-nikah
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete : As consensus was not reached in the 1st debate, I think that it's normal to continue discussions. In my opinion, this article is very subjective and is related to a "crazy" and anonymous fatwa that is not subject to an encyclopedic article. Wikifan115 (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. : Subject is noteworthy and has achieved lots of media coverage from main stream media outlets which have not retracted their stories. Subjectivity of an article is not a reason for deletion; instead a pov label should be attached. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Flag of the Netherlands.svg) 17:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. : Weather or not the fatwa that started this off was crazy has no bearing on notability.-- Auric    talk  20:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article is not subjective, it is notable. It is covered by the international media. Relation to some crazy or anonymous fatwa is not a criteria for deletion. BengaliHindu (talk) 07:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as a violation of WP:NEO. It simply doesn't have wide coverage in the media; it's a rarely used term which only popped up recently due to a small number of online authors attempting to popularize it. It doesn't have wide usage in the media and the notion that this term has any staying power is unproven. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Has anyone even searched the exact term? One hit on Google news, our article. General search brings up all of 1,630,000, that is not a lot. And as near as I can see, this is Sex Jihad? Which means this is still a WP:Neo per the previous deletion discussion. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is Sex Jihad, and someone renamed it recently. But it is transliterated into english a number of ways (the current name probably comes from one I picked among the many), there are many articles discussing it.--Milowent • hasspoken  05:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble finding these "many articles" with the standard means. It's also worth noting that the Persian version of this article was created on September 21st while the Arabic version was created on September 23rd, both after the creation of this English article - though in the case of the Arabic article, the title is for the specific fatwa from a specific Muslim cleric and all sources just discuss the fatwa of that specific cleric, not this neologism. The Persian article has a combination of info on homosexuality as well as Iranian President Rouhani's comments on the matter; all sources on the Persian version don't seem to relate to what's being discussed here on the English article. I have to be honest, it really looks like a lot of grasping for straws at this point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Most articles in English are under "sex jihad" though some of the early ones use various spellings of the jihad al-nikah. This article in policymic.com gives a good overview of how the coverage developed and spread.  Also the article Wikipedia article is about the same subject, just with more emphasis focusing on the alleged fatwa, it also mentions the Tunisian minister's recent comments.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge per Mezzo Mezzo and Darkness Shines. This article better belongs to the one who gave out the fatwa - since he denies it, it should be on his page as it is unclear in it's origin. I note one result on Google Scholar - and even that is a passing reference. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Subject meets WP:GNG, hoax/propaganda, or what have you.--Milowent • hasspoken  05:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Question, what has changed since the last discussion, which ended with a no-consensus close? Are we to continue relisting this one until we get the "correct" answer?  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep Given the long list of reliable references which directly discuss the subject, there really isn't a question. A rewrite is probably in order, though. &there4; ZX95 [ discuss ] 20:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - this nomination was made just 4 days after the previous nomination was closed as no consensus. It's generally considered bad form to renominate a page for deletion so soon after the closing of a previous nomination. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 06:57, 15 October 2013 (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.