Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad satire (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 delete. The WP:JUNK / WP:SYNTH arguments have persuaded all but one participant. This does not preclude an encyclopedic recreation of an article about the interaction between comedy and terrorism.  Sandstein  13:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Jihad satire
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article appears to be a mixture of original research, conflation and POV thinking. The title of the article is, from the outset, original research. The phrase "Jihad satire" is not a term that has ever been referenced in any tertiary sources, and it is little more than a passing mention as a phrase in secondary sources, such as in the name of this conference talk and used once in this article. The conflation comes in with the article making no apparent attempt to distinguish between Jihad and Terrorism and freely interchanging between satire related to jihad and satire related to terrorism more generally. The POV is apparent, for example, in the "As healing" section, which is just about the therapeutic role of humour and satire for victims of terror attacks - and where the article doesn't even attempt to draw a direct link between its supposed theme and the material or sources. Again, in "as political stategy", we have Humor can be a counter to the environment that breeds fanaticism and terrorism - more quotes with not even a mention of the word jihad. All in all, it is a jumbled mess, and conflating jihad and terrorism without context or appropriate segue is entirely unencyclopedic. There are other places on Wikipedia for discussing the relationship between Islam and humour, not least on the Islam and blasphemy page. This page is not the way. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  10:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * NB: It is worth adding that the article's creator AMuseo is a blocked sock, and that the previous deletion discussion also touched upon WP:NEO and WP:SNYTH as relevant guidelines, noting the complete absence of reliable secondary sourcing supporting "Jihad satire" as a neologism. Ngrams similarly turns up nada:
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 03:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 03:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 03:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Humor and Islamic terrorism or something similar. Many people at the first AfD at Articles for deletion/Jihad satire agreed that the article should probably be renamed. I would suggest the same outcome here. It's been 10 years, just WP:BEBOLD and move it and nuke the unencyclopedic cruft. But many sources cover the topic of humor based on islamic terrorism and it'd be hard for me to believe that since the Charlie Hebdo shooting there aren't even more. It's hard for me to endorse a wholesale deletion here given that a report covered in a major newspaper endorsed the necessity of using humor to combat Islamic terrorism, there's the source "Comedy as Counter-Terrorism", etc etc. I'll throw in this newer source too as proof that the general concept of humor making fun of Islamic terrorism is a subject that has been analyzed enough by reliable sources to deserve its own article. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 04:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Chess: I am definitely not saying that the interaction between comedy and terrorism isn't a valid subject: it's probably several subjects. My motion for deletion was more based on the fact that this article in particular, in its present form, doesn't really do any justice to any subject in a coherent manner. Given the neologism, the conflation, the specter of original thinking, and the clear lack of invested editors interested in improving this sock creation, my thinking is more that it is WP:JUNK. No material on comedy/satire related to terrorism, the therapeutic nature of comedy/satire or any of the examples above are even mentioned on the main pages for Comedy or Satire, so perhaps the subject should start there before birthing a spin-off article. Re: the sourcing - your newer source appears to be a reprint of an opinion piece from the Sun-Sentinel, while the "Comedy as Counter-Terrorism" piece is also an opinion-style post on a page categorised by the website it is on as a "blog". More generally, the sources appear to be a collection of opinion pieces and review-style articles. We have the one unlinked "Pasquali" source from the Journal of Holistic Nursing, but that is about terrorism is general and it is from 2003, so pre-Iraq War, pre-Charlie Hebdo, etc., so not sure how useful or relevant that is likely to be. Actually, the more I look at the sources, the more I see WP:JUNK. The one half-decent source, a Reuters piece on a report by Demos, would be much more specifically useful on the page for Jihad Cool. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per nom as neologism and synthesis without available sources, this isn't how we construct articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm with the WP:JUNK argument here. In order to keep this or even merge it, it would need to be rewritten completely, using basically nothing that currently exists in the article. (And I'm skeptical that could be done with wikipedia-encyclopedic NPOV.) Just WP:TNT it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.