Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad satire


 * 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   keep. WP:NEO does not apply because the sources simply are there. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Jihad satire

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article was originally nominated by proposed deletion, and restored upon request. The prod concern was "The article is a Neologism, based on original theories and conclusions and lacking reliable sources." This is a procedural nomination, at this time I have no opinion since I have not yet had time to review the sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, because the content covers the topic sufficiently, and the article has acceptable references per WP:RS. Any other problems can be addressed via normal editing of the article. This does appear to be a notable topic.  Steve Quinn (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing to delete, while I cannot review the offline sources, not a single one of the online ones even mentions the term "Jihad satire". As such, this does appear to be a true neologism not supported by the article's sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NEO. Pburka (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have included this on the terrorism-related deletion log.
 * Keep I have added material and will add more. I created the article.  But I hardly "invented" the concept.  The article was featured on DKY,  which does undergo review.   And as to the assertion that this is article is "based on original theories and conclusions and lacking reliable sources..." I do hope that editors will look at the sources.AMuseo (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you please specify which source uses the term "Jihad satire"? That would help very much in evaluating it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to admit that I didn't catch on to the synthesis, and original research part of this article. Now I see what all the fuss is about. I like the idea of the article, it has useful content, however it will have to be rewritten to reflect secondary source coverage. See WP:NEO for more information. I haven't changed my "keep", but the article will have to be rewritten to comply with policy. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A discussion of reorganizing the article should take place on the talk page, not on an AFD.  There are sources for 'Jihad satire" (such as the Wall Street Journal article in tn citations),  sources for "satire  of jihadists", and other variants including a fairly formal article in the Atlantic Monthly called ""The Case for Calling Them Nitwits".  By all means, let's close this AFD and figure this out on the talk page.AMuseo (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article may have to be reformatted and renamed as discussed above, but that should take place at the talk page, not afd. What's clear is that the general topic is notable.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 14:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Brewcrewer, well said - that's what I was trying to say - "general topic is notable" - but got tongue-tied. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I think the fundamental aspects of this article are both notable and verifiable, but should possibly be under a different title and maybe merged into a broader article on political satire or humour related to Islam. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think WP:NEO can apply here. There are undoubtedly a number of WP:RS that discuss the use of satire and humour to diffuse the threat of Jihad-inspired terrorism and to discourage people from undertaking it. The name of the article might not be "correct", but the article has clearly established its notability. Bigger digger (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Although the topic title is not necessarily definitely defined, the sources due attest to the topic's notability.Smallman12q (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   gossip 23:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Author has created this neologism through the synthesis of multiple sources.    Snotty Wong   gossip 23:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep . The term 'Jihad Satire' is heavily in use - a google search can verify that, so it's no longer a Neologism. I do however think the article needs a bit of work, to use the sources that can be turned up by such a search. Porterjoh (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is notable, and the name is fine. Plenty of news mention of using satire to prevent terrorists from recruiting people to jihad.   D r e a m Focus  14:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and probably move to Humor and Islamic terrorism or similar. As many in this discussion have noted, the cited sources show that there is a real topic here, but the actual term "Jihad satire" doesn't seem to be sufficiently established. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete 1) A Facebook group hardly meets the criteria for notability. 2) The introductory paragraph on the WP page and the Facebook page are identical, so one was lifted from the other, and either way, self-reference is not notability. 3) Parts of the article are synthesis and some seems to be original research.Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2010 (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.