Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (4th 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   speedy keep. Procedural close - Way too soon to start renominating, I suggest waiting 5 months. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 15:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Rape jihad
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am nominating this article because it is a neologism, instead of being an article by itself. It is in reality 2 sentences of genuine text coat racked with information copy pasted from other Wikipedia articles. Furthermore this article contains a large amount of original research and is based solely on questionable sources which have been ruled to be "unreliable" as a source for factual information at RS/N on multiple occasions through concensus. Even worse is that the article is clearly a synthesis instead of being an article. Allow me to explain these concerns in detail.

First let us get speedy keep out of the way. "The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion as an outcome of the discussion." as this requires me to post valid concerns I will present and explain them below. I apologize for the wall of text(however this is not a wall of text pre se as it does not contain arguments unrelated to the matter at hand, neither does it contain any arguments already discussed at length, the paragraphs are kept short, there are no personal attacks and there is no sarcasm directed at the creator of the article) but to put this to rest I will have to show all shortcomings of the article one by one, even though only two or three of these are enough to put it up for deletion.

The first thing wrong with this article is that it is a neologism. According to policy in order to support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. 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, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy. If we look closely at the article it does not contain any sources which even describe the so called rape jihad.

Then the article falls foul of is general notability. If we just click the sources we see that it is not mentioned in any notable book except "Perfect Enemy: The Law Enforcement Manual of Islamist Terrorism". However this book only gives an offhand description of what the author terms as rape Jihad instead of telling us what the thing really means. If we look at the newspapers we see that many search results in news are not newspapers but only the comment section where the word has been mentioned, cutting down its mention even more.

The third shortcoming which makes this article a candidate for deletion is the lack of sources. Whereas when we look at the article just quickly it appears to have a lot of references which make it look like a proper article, but this is a clear example of bombardment and over citation in order to prevent an AFD from deleting the article based on lack of sources. However when we click those references we see that 90% have been copied from main articles to form a coatrack and there are actually only 4/5 real references which mention the term. These sources are, however, not reliable as all of them are questionable. According to Wikipedia a questionable source is a website of publishing house “expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinionsـ”. This fits exactly on the sources given in the article such as the FrontPage mag and the gate stone institute.

The fourth problem with this article is that it fits the definition of point of view forking. According to policy “The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article.” If we take a look at the articles from which this article is forking like the Bedlam siege, the Darfur Massacre or even the ISIS atrocities we see no mention of the word “rape jihad”. This is exactly why this article was created because rape jihad could not be added in those articles without being reverted and therefore this article was created to cater to a POV.

Number five on the shortcomings list of this article is synthesis and original research. If we look at the article we see that it mentioned separate incidents of rape and then joins the dots to make it look like a part of a mosaic which it titles rape jihad. We see that no news story surfaced which labelled these incidents as part of an ongoing rape jihad. There exists no publication which connects these incidents as part of a larger phenomenon but the article has been synthesized with original research in order to further the point of view that such a phenomena exists. In the words of Jimmy wales “If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research”. The people mentioning rape jihad in opinion pieces are so small in number that creating an article on Wikipedia based on their views and synthesized content should not be allowed.

Now we come to the neutrality of the article. According to Wikipedia policy there is no harm in sourcing from biased sources as sometimes they are the sole source of a view. However it is not allowed to simply use biased sources in the entire article. However if we look at the article we see that the entire article has been taken from opinion pieces written by far right, ultra conservative, islamophobic, sources which makes this article highly POV and makes it a candidate for deletion.

As there is a chance of canvassing, I am pinging all editors who previously participated in an AFD debate about this article. This includes the ones who voted for keeping and the ones who voted for delete. Darkness Shines,Dougweller,Squeamish Ossifrage Gobōnobō  ,Jason from nyc ,MezzoMezzo...William,  Mar4d  IRWolfie- Benfold,Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) , indopug  Davey 2010 , Pax ,CircleAdrian, Ibrahim Husain Meraj ,BengaliHindu, -- Fauzan , Hut 8.5 ,Bryce Carmony, DawnDusk, --Esprit15d • talk • , WalkingOnTheB,   Blue Rasberry  , Pharaoh of the Wizards, § FreeRangeFrog  , --   AHLM13 , Carrite, Lankiveil FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC) -
 * Speedy keep (per speedy keep applicability criteria 2.d). A massive wall of text rationale covering a frivolous, disruptive nomination. The last AfD concluded only a few days ago, the nom presented all of his arguments above during that discussion, and was unsuccessful in securing deletion. Pax 06:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Admin request: The list of prior AfDs in the upper-right is out of correct time sequence; the 2nd (i.e., the one which just concluded) is actually the most recent. This needs to be fixed to avoid erroneous appearances of shifting sentiment. Pax 06:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty to fix that myself. --DawnDusk (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, previous AfD was closed just 2 days ago. Use deletion review if you feel that the previous close was incorrect, yet I can hardly imagine a different outcome from no consensus. Cavarrone 07:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Procedural close I request to either wait two to three months or file a DRV. If the arguments are solid, I support a DRV.-- Fauzan ✆  talk ✉ mail  08:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as per WP:IAR (because my following rationale is not a speedy keep criteria, although it should still be speedily kept) because contacting the closing admin to try to come up with a solution, then (if unsuccessful) opening a deletion review is the appropriate venue for challenging the close. Esquivalience  t 11:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep indeed, your agenda shines through despite trying to hide it behind a wall of text. Three out of four of your arguments were throttled in the last AfD. Furthermore, it's been said time and time again: the title of an article is not grounds for deletion. The phenomenon this article describes is well sourced in it. If you're truly so enraged by a supposed neologism that is used by five different sources and probably doesn't have a better alternative, then try to find a better alternative title. --DawnDusk (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2015 (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.