Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Jihad (3rd 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. !voters generally agree that the subject is notable, but there is no consensus whether this is WP:TNT material or not (roughly equivalent headcounts of !deleting and !keeping). Since there is no consensus to delete the article, I suggest improving it based on the sources presented here. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Love Jihad
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable conspiracy theory. It does exist, but I am not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources. Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This article needs some serious work to be compliant with WP:PROFRINGE, but I do see enough high-quality sources to meet the general notability guideline. Here is a sample:


 * Yeah, an NPOV article would be a good thing. Articles from The Wire . The jstor link above is useless, but google  fiveby(zero) 20:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely. The current state of the article (Special:Permalink/979504384), which portrays Love Jihad as a plausible theory rather than a conspiracy theory, is not acceptable because hoaxes do not belong on Wikipedia. See for excerpts from 12 reliable sources describing "Love Jihad" as a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim. Improving (or draftifying) the article would be preferable to deleting it, but it's a violation of WP:PROFRINGE to have a Wikipedia article present a discredited conspiracy theory like "Love Jihad" as a real phenomenon. —  Newslinger   talk   05:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per (below). The amount of reliable scholarship available far exceeds what is needed to establish that "Love Jihad" is a notable conspiracy theory under WP:GNG. In fact, there is more scholarship on the "Love Jihad" conspiracy theory than there is on the QAnon conspiracy theory—a subject for which Wikipedia also has an article. The article needs to be significantly rewritten to afford the scholarship its due weight, of course. As a second choice, I can support deleting the article under WP:TNT and then immediately recreating it with policy- and guideline-compliant content; salting is completely inappropriate here. —  Newslinger   talk   01:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

*Speedy Keep Undoubtedly notable subject having received significant coverage by millions of reliable sources. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:TNT. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per discussion below. While it is notable and has received coverage, it is not something that requires separate page. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Blatantly notable.★Trekker (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree millions of sources have covered the subject but their motive to cover this subject is: 1) similar to covering any subject which is related to a popular political or religious POV, 2) to discuss political and religious agenda of a number of political parties, religious organizations and individuals. There hasn't been a dedicated research on this subject so far which would highlight all of the well-known events that have occurred related to the subject. Until there has been enough research, or treatment of this subject more than just a plausible theory or political/religious agenda, I think we should just delete the article. Rustam Fan (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing you claimed is a good reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete because sourcing is inadequate for significance. "I've told you a million times, Don't exaggerate." -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How? So far all the deltion votes seem to sum up to "I don't like it".★Trekker (talk) 08:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep riduculous to claim there are insufficient sources for a neutral presentation:
 * fiveby(zero) 13:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt It is indeed unclear how the subject should be treated and the jumbling of cases involving "interreligion marriage" and "fraud marriage" even by the reliable sources has made it even more difficult. I also note that Rape jihad was salted after Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (5th nomination). We can wait until there is more notability and clarity about the subject and coverage independent from Indian political parties, Myanmar politics and religious groups that have made allegation of the existence of this concept per WP:NOTINHERITED. For that we will need much better sources than what we currently have. Azuredivay (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:TNT and start over due to the many issues at this article.VR talk 11:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, because the government of India has also confirmed Love Jihad is not defined anywhere under law. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/love-jihad-not-defined-under-law-says-centre/article30736760.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sz786 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. The justification for deletion (as a not-notable conspiracy theory) is simply not valid. There is a significant number of RS on this subject, as one can see from the referencing on the page and references provided during this discussion (see above). Just not liking the subject (I do not like it too) is not a valid reason for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG. Conspiracy theory or not, this has been in the news almost every week for the past 10 years, so there are adequate sources to meet the notability criteria. M4DU7 (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the topic definitely gets it due media coverage but the article is in bad shape. Its trying to push the POV that its possible rather than it being a conspiracy theory. Not surprisingly the idea as propagated by extreme right wing groups find its inspiration in Mein Kampf . Probably the article fits WP:TNT case for a complete rewrite based solely on academic sourcing. Roller26 (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per . - ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The issue has been largely ignored by English media, but has been significantly covered in reliable vernacular media. For e.g this article from Dainik Jagran Quartzd (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Newslinger and fiveby clearly passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * fiveby(zero) 13:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt It is indeed unclear how the subject should be treated and the jumbling of cases involving "interreligion marriage" and "fraud marriage" even by the reliable sources has made it even more difficult. I also note that Rape jihad was salted after Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (5th nomination). We can wait until there is more notability and clarity about the subject and coverage independent from Indian political parties, Myanmar politics and religious groups that have made allegation of the existence of this concept per WP:NOTINHERITED. For that we will need much better sources than what we currently have. Azuredivay (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:TNT and start over due to the many issues at this article.VR talk 11:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, because the government of India has also confirmed Love Jihad is not defined anywhere under law. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/love-jihad-not-defined-under-law-says-centre/article30736760.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sz786 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. The justification for deletion (as a not-notable conspiracy theory) is simply not valid. There is a significant number of RS on this subject, as one can see from the referencing on the page and references provided during this discussion (see above). Just not liking the subject (I do not like it too) is not a valid reason for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG. Conspiracy theory or not, this has been in the news almost every week for the past 10 years, so there are adequate sources to meet the notability criteria. M4DU7 (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the topic definitely gets it due media coverage but the article is in bad shape. Its trying to push the POV that its possible rather than it being a conspiracy theory. Not surprisingly the idea as propagated by extreme right wing groups find its inspiration in Mein Kampf . Probably the article fits WP:TNT case for a complete rewrite based solely on academic sourcing. Roller26 (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per . - ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The issue has been largely ignored by English media, but has been significantly covered in reliable vernacular media. For e.g this article from Dainik Jagran Quartzd (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Newslinger and fiveby clearly passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Newslinger and fiveby clearly passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2020 (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.