Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihobbyist


 * 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. Juliancolton (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Jihobbyist

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable neologism mentioned in a few articles. Also a WP:COATRACK to give biographical info of Duane Reasoner, who the article creator feels belongs on a number of different articles despite consensus against.  Grsz 11  00:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Nominator shows a pattern of supporting deletion of notable, reliably sourced material which does not suit his POV (he often opposes any material which could be characterized as information sourced by mainstream media such as Fox or USA Today on suspected terrorists) including supporting AFd. The term has been used many times by USA Today, ABC News, and mentioned several times in the scholarly book which coined the term, the author has been interviewed by the media. Duane Reasoner is one of the most detailed documented cases of Jihobby-ism in terms of videos favorited and photos posted, and tags attached to his identity, and clearly helps to characterize the topic. He is a person who may have had advance knowledge of Hasan's attack, and certainly was in a position to have dis-suaded Hasan, but instead chose to justify the attack on "soldiers sent to kill Muslims" after the fact. In contrast to COATRACK, the editor uses it as a tool to attempt to completely eliminate any mention of a related topic, such as the fact the Reasoner was Hasan's only known close associate, and obviously acted to reinforce rather than discourage Hasan's jihadists plans, even if there is not enough evidence to prove that he was actually a co-conspirator who help Hasan get connected with Revolution Muslim and Awalaki himself. These very details of his internet activities were published by the mainstream press, not to mention countless anti-jihad blogs which were the first to point these out. Bachcell (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Bachcell is quick to attack me simply because his POV is differnt from mine. I find the term and its use interesting, but its simply just an infrequently used neologism that is better suited for Wiktionary.  Grsz 11  02:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's fair to say that he may have been influenced by your votes in support of deleting/redirecting the page for the Christmas Day bomber, or your effort to delete this article--where DGG himself (whom we all know is as non-POV as one can get) said he hoped that the nom by Grsz was not being made because of Grsz's POV.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then I apologize you two cannot see past previous interactions and the true merits of this deletion argument, as others have. The deletion argument has nothing to do with a POV, and everything to do with WP:NEO, which is a frequently referenced section in AfD.  Grsz 11  02:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * With regard to the observations by both Bachcell and DGG, which I join in, and your reaction, I am reminded of this.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – WP:NEO.  nableezy  – 21:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC) – since I am the person who provided the "bald unsupported rationale", Ill expand. The CS Monitor is the one good source in the article. The rest are either from the originator of the term, or from marginal sources, or from instances where the word is being used. People using a word does not mean that a word is notable. This article, along with most articles on neologisms exists to promote usage of a term. Many of the sources in the article are of low quality, blogs used as primary sources, and a self-published website that tracks neologisms being used to claim this was made up by Jay Leno. The originator of the term using and defining it. When you take out all the fluff from these sources, all that is left is the CS Monitor paper. I dont think that is enough to say that this neologism merits an article on Wikipedia. There are not enough independent sources about the actual word to merit anything more than a page on wordspy.com  nableezy  – 01:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, Nableezy. I disagree.  The article is replete with refs from notable sources.  As to your use of the term blog, as you know they come in more than one type – those that are non-notable "MuNab's Blog", and those that are notable—such as the Revolution Muslim blog here. The article includes, as anyone can see, sources interviewing Brachman as to the meaning of the term, others sources criticizing the term, and others using the term.  That's the sort of mix that warrants a keep.  And as to the website that tracks new terms, that also appears notable enough.  Always makes one wonder what drives those who seek to delete the articles w/17 refs, as they don't seek to delete the unreferenced articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The quality of the sources is far more important than the number of them. And the use of blogs, as primary sources no less, shows the quality of the sources here.  nableezy  – 01:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I meant to mention before, there are different types of blogs. We're not talking here about non-notable personal page blogs about MuNab's views on dinner, the Yankees, and cous-cous, but rather notable blogs by notable persons.  That's a whole different ball of wax, and the coverage by the notable person in the blog confers notability on the subject of this article.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If a blog is notable it can have an article about it; that does not mean it is a reliable source or should be used on Wikipedia.  nableezy  - 19:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is certainly prima facie evidence of such. And such is the case here.  IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely not prima facie evidence of a blog being reliable. Atlas shrugged may be a "notable" blog, it is by no means a reliable source.  nableezy  - 20:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting (if contestable) discussion for the RS noticeboard. Irrelevant here.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. As evidenced by the 17 refs, and the accompanying text, it is not a "non-notable neologism mentioned in a few articles".  Rather, it is a notable term, mentioned, inter alia, by ABC News, FOX News, PBS NewsHour, The Christian Science Monitor, The Dallas Morning News,  CTC Sentinel, Word Spy, The Jawa Report, and even outside the U.S. in Oneindia News.  Furthermore, the refs not only reflect usage of the term, and discussion and explanation about the term and its meaning, but also criticism of the term.  Under WP:NEO, this is just the sort of article that warrants a keep.  Nor, of course, is the article a coatrack, which is an article where the subject is used as an empty coat-rack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats".  That simply hasn't happened here – rather, the subject of the article, the term "jihobbyist", is front and center, and not in the least obscured.  Finally, this is the sort of article that may perhaps attract delete !votes by some who have POVs relating to the I-P conflict; I would hope that the closer will see through bald unsupported rationales asserting that this violates the above guidances, and afford us an NPOV application of the rules in the close.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is stuffed full of unreliable sources – i.e. blogs – as Epeefleche knows perfectly well. This is basically another silly blogospheric neologism. – ChrisO (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I want to make perfectly clear – since ChrisO just indicated, moments ago, in what may have been our first exchange ever, that he felt that he had been singled out for being pro-jihad – that I actually have no opinion of ChrisO in this regard. I do, however, think that he is incorrect here.  As of course there is not any blanket prohibition of blogs, and of course Revolution Muslim is notable.  I cannot say that ChrisO knows this perfectly well, however, as that would be a violation of AGF.  Also, he may legitimately not understand or know that.  Before he chastised me on my talk page moments ago, and followed that by appearing suddenly at this AfD (the most recent one at which I had commented), I can't recall having seen his comments and edits in my 40,000+ edit career.  Though it's of course likely that we did cross paths; perhaps the crossing was simply not memorable to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is notable and there are several reliable sources covering it. Even though the article may have some questionable sources, that is not a valid reason to delete an article – as ChrisO (a former admin) knows perfectly well. The article should be expanded, because there is lots more info about Jihobbyism out there. Breein1007 (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Click the Google news link at the top of the AFD. It gets results, and they explain where the word came from even.  Google book search only gets one result, not sure if that book is notable or not.  Doesn't matter, the news coverage proves its notable.   D r e a m Focus  06:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Those results actually show why this should not have an article – only three stories mention it. – ChrisO (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * merge -- the term exists, so go and create a Wikitonary entry. WP:NOTE is a different issue. But why do people always jump to AfD? It is perfectly straightforward to merge this into Islamic terrorism. --dab (𒁳) 10:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * most of the time, deletion requests are caused by structural problems in existing articles. Reviewing Category:Islamic terrorism and Islamic terrorism, I find that we are disastrously lacking a discussion of the history of Islamic terrorism. The phenomenon is a century old now and needs to be studied in its historical development. The "Jihobbyist" phenomenon would come in under the heading "21st century" or "post-9/11", as it illustrates the decentralization of Islamic terrorism with the internet (Islamic_terrorism) and the huge Muslim diaspora (alienated migrants, sleepers). Instead of bickering over neologisms, interested editors should try to build more comprehensive accounts of the topic. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * most of the time, deletion requests are causd by POV pushers who don't agree with the POV of those creating the articles. For example, the New Jersey guy who was all over the news after being caught with a small arsenal, maps of army bases that had "jihad" written all over that was probably 3 times the size of the guy's FBI file with as many sources was somehow voted to be deleted before being revived after it was still a news story. The nominator shows a consistent disruptive record of challenging and harassing editors who add information, no matter how well sourced, regarding islamic plots, attacks and suspects, including supporting or nominating AFDs. Bachcell (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciate Bachmann's suggestion, but don't think merge is appropriate for this nearly-20-cite article. There is certainly sufficient material here for a stand-alone article, there is more than one place it could be merged so it doesn't "naturally" belong in any one, and one loses cats and wps when one merges an article needlessly and raises wp:undue questions as well.  Agree w/Bachmann that the nom of this article raises troubling questions, and that good-faith editors should seek to build a better article.  Bachcell of course has a possibly correct response to Bachmann's "why" question, which could be bolstered by examining which articles delete editors vote for AfD, but there's perhaps no need to do so as we can stick to the fact that this article should be kept.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge with Islamic terrorism. Notwithstanding the amount of padding here, there's not enough here for a standalone article. Dlabtot (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Thanks to some work since its nomination I regard this as a strong article. I think it had sufficient sources to justify retention prior to the recent work.  I have cited some of Brachmann's other works.  I know he is a serious scholar.  WRT to the article's use of "blogs"... in an attempt to seem "modern" some real news sources allow their professional columnists to have online fora, which they confusingly call blogs -- but which nevertheless have the same or similar editorial oversight as their print columns.  Conflating these fora with the blogs of uninformed non-professionals is a serious mistake.  Some real professionals write blogs in their spare time, which, nevertheless are widely cited by the MSM, because the professional authors are well-informed, and authoritative, and write to a professional standard.  Conflating these fora with the 99 percent of unprofessional blogs is also a mistake.  So, please, let's have no blanket denunciations of all "blogs".  Geo Swan (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which of these are written by "real professionals" who are "are well-informed, and authoritative, and write to a professional standard"? Or are they associated with "real news sources" and written by "professional columnists"?  nableezy  - 01:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Actually this is quite a well written article with considerable information, and the expression is noted in The Christian Science Monitor & The Dallas Morning News &PBS etc. It is a distinction originating in a scholarly book on terrorism, one that makes an important distinction between members of a terrorist group and individuals who act on their own initiative.  Notable blogs *also* have commented upon the expression but the article does not rely upon this to define and flesh out the concept.  Good article.  Definite keep.  69.131.127.159 (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (which is a deletion criteria, and an ISNOT, and is-nots trump notability) because it's defined in the intro to be about the term. Encyclopedia articles are always about the thing, not the word for the thing. If you simply rewrite the first sentence to make it about this type of people then I'll change my vote, the rest of the article is pretty borderline, but OK.- Wolfkeeper 02:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Week keep. I'm reasonably persuaded that the author of the book coining the term is an expert, and hence it's extremely likely that this class of people exist. The fact that the article title is a NEO is a concern though, and evidence for use of the term is weak. Given encyclopedia articles aren't about the term, but the thing though, I think it's just about a keep at this time, given the author, and the underlying topic.- Wolfkeeper 04:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I like what Wolfkeeper has said, and I like his suggestion regarding the simple rewrite, and I'll assume it will be done, so to me it's a keeper.  I think the article stands alone and need not be merged.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NEO the term is not in frequent use. Wiktionary entry plus mentioning of the term in the Islamic terrorism is enough. IQinn (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article as it stands is about the neologism, which doesn't appear to have the high level of notability needed to sustain an article about a word.  A rewrite of the article to focus on the topic of "Jihobbyists" would likely be better placed in an existing article rather than in an article of its own.  But even if not, I would rather the current content be removed and the new article written from scratch.  Powers T 13:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Islamic terrorism. This appears to be a neologism. Cnilep (talk) 14:16, 29 May 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.