Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihadi tourism


 * 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. Relisting is unlikely to generate any consensus either. There seems to be a strong case for renaming the article, but that's outside the scope of this AfD. Owen&times; &#9742;  12:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Jihadi tourism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article is a neologism without a clearly defined meaning. The topic and article is completely original synthesis. Delete per WP:NEO and No original research. Less than half of the sources actually use the term "jihadi tourism" and none of the sources directly discuss the term as per the requirements at WP:NEO. 4meter4 (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Search indicates that this term emerges from newspapers for the purpose of acquiring terrorism training. All sources of search indicate this result. This is contrary to the opening sentence of this article (says it means something else); this constitutes neologism. Delete per WP:NEO --Whiteguru (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is pure WP:Syn. Any visits to any place that's linked to Islamic terrorism, whatever the reason, is apparently Jihadi tourism. Paul B (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep You cite WP:NEO. So do I. In particular: "... may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society...". Also per WP:NEO, there is no "... analysis and synthesis of primary source material...", and thus not OR. In fact, seemingly everthing in WP:NEO supports the existence of the article. You state that all sources refer to the second definition, Jihadi tourism for the purposes of terrorist training. These sites use the term to describe the first definition, tourism for the purpose of visiting historically significant sites:  Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I have no doubt that people engage in all sorts of "dark tourism" and other tyoes of tourism, but I can not see an article on "Flower tourism", or one on "Glacier tourism" or one on innumerable other potential types of "tourism" where the rationale is not "tourism" but "interest in a category of events or objects."    At best, merge useful information for "Dark tourism" in Tourism. Collect (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Anna, and as the article shows this term is used by the U.S. State Department and MI5. Qrsdogg (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. First of all, this seems to be a notable neologism . Second, this is more about a really existing phenomenon, rather than about wording. As about different varieties of tourism, some of them deserve a separate article (may be even "flower tourism"), but others do not. This depends on sources. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep ... but . This is a well-written article and "Jihadi tourism" is a notable phenomenon that deserves an article. But ... the term "Jihadi tourism" is rarely used by WP:RS to discuss visits to tourist destinations associated with Jihad, it is primarily used by WP:RS to describe "tourists" who are seeking to "latch on to terrorist organizations" or "to train for terrorist attacks."  I also see some right-wing media like Fox and the WSJ seeking to broaden this very pejorative term to describe the much more innocent phenomenon of, for example, Lebanon creating a museum to memorialize its own nationalistic POV about its conflicts with Israel.  I don't think Wikipedia should be supporting this essentially POV project of theirs by promoting their re-definition of Jihadi tourism. As per the concern raised by others with WP:NEO and WP:SYNTH I would like to see  this article describe the phenomenon of people traveling to Somalia or Pakistan or wherever to join terrorist groups. betsythedevine (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I tried to improve it by putting in the suggestions I made here, so the article has changed a bit since being nominated. Although "jihadi tourism" is a new term, the fact that it showed up in Wikileaks suggests it will get continued discussion and exposure, so even if deleted (which I hope it won't be) this article will eventually be reborn. betsythedevine (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - only half the sources used for the article actually use the term "jihadi tourism" and none of them actually discuss the term as per the WP:NEO requirement. Most of the sources are also about the one event, something that occurred at a Mosque in Germany. The term is found in just one book on Google books and that is only a fleeting mention of the term with no discussion. Google scholar gets practically no hits. Looks like a classic case of NEO to me. Gatoclass (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Topic is certainly notable. The fact that you cannot find the exact title term is meaningless considering the number of sources given and describing the occurrence. BelloWello (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: As Anna has showed, the topic has enough coverage in reliable sources. --Reference Desker (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. So far none of the keep votes have actually addressed the sourcing concerns in relation to the requirements at WP:NEO which is a non-negotiable policy. NEO policy says that "blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term are insufficient to support articles on neologisms". None of the sources supporting this article are actually about the term "Jihadi tourism". In a nut shell, the keep votes are 'I like it' comments which show either an ignorance or lack of respect for wikipedia policy.4meter4 (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh no, they are about the term, like this source, for example. More important, they are not just about the "term", but about an existing phenomenon. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that source is not about the term but about events in Somalia. It doesn't attempt to provide a defintion of the term, nor does it discuss how the term has been used, or provide any history on the terms etymology. This is a perfect example of a source using the term but not being about the term. Indeed, not one single source used in this article actually provides a clear definition of the term "Jihadi tourism". How can a source be about a particular subject when it doesn't give a definition of the subject? 4meter4 (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The WSJ reference prove it is a sociological phenomenon, not term. --Reference Desker (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a bad argument. First, the term's use in the first example you gave above is as a neologism (and a neologism is a term with a specific meaning); which is also the way it is used in the majority of the sources used in this article. Yet none of the sources provide a definition. Second, it should be possible to clearly define or at least describe a sociological phenomenon.4meter4 (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In reviewing the sources, the only thing that seems clear to me about this term is that no clear definition of it has yet emerged. About the only statement approaching a definition I could find in the provided sources was the statement in the Times of India article which describes the phenomenon as "foreigners and emigrants with extremist impulses [who] scout for terror training in what is now being referred to in intelligence circles as jihadi tourism." Yet the Telegraph story states that MI5 "dismissed a trip by Mohammed Sidique Khan to meet terrorists in Pakistan as 'jihadi tourism'" - indicating that MI5 use the term dismissively to refer to an activity that is not seen as a genuine threat. The MI5 operative said of the term that it is "A phrase that is used in the service then and is still used ... Individuals go to Pakistan to have a look and see what's going on." So, does "jihadi tourism" refer to a genuinely threatening phenomenon, as indicated by the CBS article ("WikiLeaks: "Jihadi Tourism" Worries U.S., U.K." or does it, on the contrary, as indicated by the Telegraph article, refer to the opposite? Meanwhile, it's also being used to describe visits to historic Muslim battle sites. The term doesn't appear to have developed a clear meaning at this point, which is another reason to consider it a neologism. Gatoclass (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I clarified some of those issues in the article, as well as doing a bit of cleanup. Gatoclass (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable topic.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliable sources have both described the term and used the term; minor details like how to reconcile differences in usage can be worked out by editing the article rather than deleting it. Quigley (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: an article on a notable term (evidenced by cited sources) that is ambiguous and thanks to our editors we now have a/the most useful explanation of it. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC))


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.  — –  OhioStandard  (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Maybe this neologism belongs on the Urban Dictionary site, but it doesn't belong here. Also, it's yet another article that is being promoted by one faction in Wikipedia's I/P wars to give readers the idea that Muslims and Arabs are - pick any three - bloodthirsty/foolish/bigots. While those characterizations may be true for some very small percentage of the group, it's no less true, in my opinion of its usual opponents. If and when a few established dictionaries give it legitimacy, then we can revisit the issue at that time. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course any article must avoid calling Muslims, Arabs or other religions and ethnicities "bloodthirsty/foolish/bigots". Where did you find it in this article? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. The term's obviously in use, but I clicked through all the examples given above, and they appear to all be about the Hezbollah museum being an example of jihadi tourism. I don't see any examples of jihadi tourism being discussed in itself as WP:NEO seems to me to require. (Such as an article that seeks to define it, or an article that gives multiple examples to explore the phenomenon in multiple places or over time). The line I'm particularly looking at is: "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position". The first sentence of this article seems to me to be an example of this; the author's had to infer a definition that doesn't appear to be sourced. I feel like this article's likely to crest notability requirements in the near future but not quite there yet. Khazar (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Um, yeah. That's what I meant, too... Well okay; that's what I wish I'd said, then. Very careful analysis; kudos. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2011 (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.