Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape Jihad


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Rape Jihad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NEO Darkness Shines (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Before I noticed the AfD I'd already come to the conclusion that this is an example of "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The term was created by Robert Spencer in the pages of FrontPage Magazine in 2004.  It has very little currency outside of that publication -- although admittedly not quite zero.  This Guardian article uses the term, and it appears in this book, both with some explanation. Most other uses of the term are derivative of Spencer's original article, either in the same publication, or else actually written by him. Several prominent Google Books hits are self-published/print-on-demand sources and are not reliable . The Gatestone Institute article used as a source currently is the most trivial of mentions, using the term solely in the title. And I'm dubious of the reliability of the HRDI source; it's actually republished from a site whose submissions policy is not suggestive of a reliable source.  All told, I just don't think there's enough use of the term, much less coverage of the term, to warrant an article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO. Term claims to describe a variety of sexually exploitative behaviors perpetrated by Muslim men, but the references listed don't seem to agree on a common definition. Gobōnobō  + c 00:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Regardless of the terms origin it seems to be used by diverse publications. One would prefer an in depth article on the topic but there's a minimum to support the article at this time. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The entire topic is simply a neologism one author is trying to create buzz for. Even the article itself simply revolves around Spencer's use of the term, and a handful of sources not written by him but merely explaining the term he invented still couldn't serve the purpose of creating an independent article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per ...William 10:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable WP:NEO.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete It's a pretty straight WP:NEO fail. This neologism just doesn't have the sort of widespread usage to justify an article. If we were to assume that all usages of the term here: actually refer to the neo (a big assumption). That's only 441 usages of the term, I wouldn't touch most of these sources with a barge poll and I can't spot any which give a detailed discussion of the Neo, so "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia" applies here. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per Benfold (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2013 (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.