Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (5th 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 delete. clearly snowing... And salting... Which tends to leave a soggy mush in the real world. Spartaz Humbug! 17:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Rape jihad (5th nomination)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This "topic" is inherently a polemic coatrack, a highly politicized neologism emanating from the right wing Front Page Magazine. It is not a scholarly formulation of the very real topic of use of rape as a political weapon, it is a made up term of demonization with which to tar enemies in an ongoing ideological war. This "topic" has been brought to debate at AfD three times previously, ending in resounding deletion (2013), deletion of a recreation (2015), and a no consensus decision (a bad close, 2015), followed by a 7-hour long non-administrative speedy close on procedural grounds (2015). Given the way that this POV zombie keeps coming back from the grave, in addition to deletion I am asking that this topic be salted to prevent facile recreation by a disgruntled editor. Plain and simple, this is a copiously footnoted political attack piece about a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Last modified: Carrite (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: So I, the article's re-creator, am "facile", is that it? Way to be uncivil right out of the gate. And being "a member of WikiProject Socialism" and emblazoning your user page with a Soviet/communist propaganda poster does not inspire confidence in your ability to stay neutral in this or any other tangentially political subject. Pax 19:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nominator said nothing of the sort, unless you've already decided to recreate if this afd is closed as delete. Also, your personal attack on Carrite based on the contents of his user page, especially when no one here is likely to see the relevance to the topic at hand is absurd and uncalled for.  Go calm down. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  19:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your counter-argument appears to be (condensed version): "They're not calling you 'facile' now; they're simply speculating you might be 'facile' in the future!". Well that's just a lovely assumption. Otherwise, noting the plausibility of impartiality is not a personal-attack. Pax 20:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, again, the nominator said " in addition to deletion I am asking that this topic be salted to prevent facile recreation by a disgruntled editor." There is no speculation there that you would. Take a chill pill. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  20:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * fac·ile 'fasəl 2. (of success, especially in sports) easily achieved; effortless. Carrite (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Disgraceful attack by User:Раціональне анархіст. The proponent of deletion is a member of wikiproject conservatism, which I notice you forgot to note when bring up the communism project. What that has to do with anything, other than another personal attack is unclear. AusLondonder (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Wikipedia's scholarly treatment of the topic seems to be at Wartime sexual violence. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt /RedirectMerge to Wartime sexual violence. Poorly used neologism, and Wikipedia is not for neologisms.  Coined by director of "Jihad Watch" who used it in an opinion column, that's not notability. Not seeing any secondary sources meeting reliability standards.  &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  18:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Practically, there's nothing to merge, all content that should be properly included has been included in vastly better articles. -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail  19:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Edited. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  19:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. The UK grooming scandals did not occur during a war.
 * 2. The article must be kept if it is to be merged.
 * 3. "Islamophobia" is an inherently polemical neologistic "political attack piece", and yet it has an article because sufficient RS are using the term. Pax 19:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. There's no rationale I can see to include it in this article to begin with.
 * I redacted merge from my statement long before you made your first comment on this afd.
 * I never said anything about "islamophobia". Show me where I have. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  20:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't imply you did; I was merely making an analogy. There are sufficient RS using the term "Rape jihad", as there are "Islamophobia". Pax 20:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Viewing the page's history, I no longer think a redir will prevent us from being back here in another month, so just delete and salt. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  03:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  18:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  18:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  18:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  18:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  18:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt - Non-notable neologism that's only used within the Islamophobic echo chamber. I quickly checked a few of the pages's sources at random: sources which use the phrase (e.g. Gatestone Institute) are unreliable; and those which are reliable (e.g. BBC) do not use the phrase. Daveosaurus (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that anyone who uses the term Rape jihad is an Islamophobe? You'd better tone down the personal attacks. And there is no consensus that Gatestone is unreliable. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt per Daveosaurus. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. Aquillion and Bosstopher have done good work in getting the article to conform to policy, but their efforts only make it clearer that the article is without virtue. At this point it's obvious that the article is nothing but "here's what a handful of right-wing commentators have referred to as Rape Jihad". A WP:COATRACK that runs afoul of WP:SYNTH. There are articles that can handle the crimes of IS and Boko Haram, and Rotherham has its own article. This one has no need to exist. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: RatatoskJones has a history of section-blanking the article and been a topic-ban proposal subject in two unresolved ANIs regarding it. He has also repeatedly relayed the logically fallacious argument that a specific term is not "in" a source article if it is only (prominently) in the title of the sourced article; an argument which saw one of their "team" of edit-warriors (FreeatlastChitchat, who sadly won't be joining the !vote-stacking today) blocked for misleading edit summaries when he tried it that way, and review-declined.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 20:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * (pile on) Delete and salt as well, per my comments: 1 2. In short, it fails WP:NEO (again and again  and again for the kryptonitillionth time  ). Most of the sources do not discuss the term at all, those who do are not reliable. The article as it currently stand is much less worse thanks to the recent uninvolved editors who did a good work, but nevertheless, the bottom line is, it flatly fails WP:GNG. It is a poor attempt to tie unrelated incidents which no reliable scholarly source has done. This article is well uhm... Ahh! my throat is dry, I need some water. -- Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆  talk <sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail  19:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. Obvious attempts at censorship are obvious. This is the second of two spurious AfDs within a month. The article has been under constant assault by a small meat-puppet army (some of whom have been or currently are blocked within the last month) who use hypocritical arguments (e.g., the neologism argument, frequently while deploying "Islamophobic" in the very same breath). If the article looks ugly at any given second, it's because they made it that way hoping to get it deleted. This is my last edit version of the article, and as you can see it is neutrally-worded with no quotations or relayed condensed statements from any sources except ISIS and Boko Haram.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 20:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Meat-puppet is a serious accusation to make and you have provided 0 evidence to support your claim. A single editor being blocked in the page's history does not equal "some", nor an "army". And neutral tone isn't the only requirement in WP:NPOV. This article (including your preferred version of it) include far too much WP:SYNTH and this is a reeking WP:EXAMPLEFARM.  &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  20:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Evidence? Here you go. (And I didn't make that one.)<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 20:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have to agree with Padenton here, Pax -- I've been involved with the discussion since following a random RfC bot notice on another user's talk page and I haven't seen any indication of meat or sockpuppetry in the present discussions (and the ANI you linked didn't come to any conclusions of meat puppetry in the previous ones) -- most all of the involved editors seem to be known, experienced contributors who have come to the talk page through similar bot postings and several notices I've seen posted at various central community discussion spaces, attempting to draw attention to the matter (and this approach to getting further community insight on contentious issues is both well-advised and allowed under WP:CANVAS). The large amount of attention and talk page comments the article has attracted is probably a result of this completely acceptable and good-faith outreach.  Furthermore, the previous AfD ended in a no consensus, so if some editors remained concerned that there were serious policy violations implicit in the continued existence and state of this article, it is permissible for them to start another one, especially if additional support from new voices on the talk page continue to argue strongly for a delete -- and looking at the several sizable discussions on that page, there is fairly landslide support for a delete or merger.  Characterizing all of those comments as attempts at censorship which utilize bad-faith methods seems incredibly inaccurate in this instance.  S n o w  let's rap 20:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per the numerous issues with regard to WP:V/WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK, WP:POVFORK, WP:NEOLOGISM, and so forth; I advise respondents here to check out the talk page discussions for salient details. I think there remains some potential for a merge of some of the content into the articles Wartime sexual violence, Sexual slavery, and Slavery in 21st-century Islamism (to whatever limited extent the material which is properly sourced is not already located in those articles).  I also feel that a general article on the topic of sexual terrorism (a more neutral and less inflammatory/coatrackish title for a topic whose notability and verifiability under available sourcing is undeniable) could be of immense value to the project's coverage of sexual violence.  I would not only support such a move as a reasonable middle-ground approach, I'd volunteer as much time as necessary to helping get it off the ground, as its an important and broad topic upon which we have very little coverage at present.  But I suspect that the acrimony attached to this article may preclude that route in the short term, as some may see it as an end-run around the delete that is likely to occur -- and the "salt" comments above tend to support this supposition, with everyone clearly tired of wrestling this neologism down. So while I think some sort of neutrally-approached article on the broader topic of rape utilized as a means of social control is not only well-advised but probably inevitable, at the moment my support goes to deleting this present article outright, as a non-neutral, inadequately sourced, and otherwise problematic mess.  S n o w  let's rap 20:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge very selectively to forced conversion, wartime sexual violence, Slavery in 21st-century Islamism, and/or sexual slavery. Even if the term did get sufficient mainstream coverage, there's just not enough distinction from these other topics. There may be room to include a brief mention at one or more articles, and if it's predominantly used by particular groups, we can say as much. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 20:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt This article is nothing but a POV BATTLEGROUND - other articles like wartime sexual violence and Slavery in 21st-century Islamism have better content that has NPOV language fleshed out with academic SECONDARY sources and actually works towards a useful goal of encyclopaedic content. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete this article is a huge pile of original research propping up a neologism. This is the basic pattern: some article somewhere uses the term "rape jihad" to describe a case of an Islamist organisation or a group of Muslims sexually abusing people. This is used as an excuse to stick in a paragraph of text about that sexual abuse, usually copied from some other article about it and citing references which don't talk about "rape jihad" at all (in the case of the Darfur section the copyist hasn't even bothered to copy across the citations referred to in the footnotes). This is all linked up to conclude that these are all instances of some wider phenomenon called "rape jihad". Very few of the sources cited draw that conclusion, and the ones that do are of very low quality (the main ones are this which is a very unreliable source, and this, an opinion piece). Since the last AfD two paragraphs about the general history of rape in warfare have also been shoved in, despite the fact that the sources don't seem to talk about "rape jihad" at all. I advise against a merge as there is very, very little content that could be used and isn't already present somewhere else and given the history of recreations salting may be a good idea.  Hut 8.5  21:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsalvageable mess of WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK where the use of sources that do not discuss "rape jihad" is routine. Huon (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The only reason these editors have for deleting the article is because they evidently don't like it. This phenomenon has been going on for a while, and it has been described in many, many, many, reliable sources, and the term "rape jihad" has been specifically used. There is no reason to delete this page. The term has been used by many prominent writers across the world, and there were widely publicized incidents of it. Also, I think we should keep in mind the person who nominated this for deletion is a communist, look at his user page. His objectivity on this is dubious at best. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Skip the personal attacks please. If you do actually want this page to be kept then labeling people as "obstructionist", "biased", "rabidly pro-Muslim" and "communist" really does not help your case. (Incidentally expressing an interest in the academic study of communism does not make you a communist, nor does communism imply support for militant Islam.)  Hut 8.5  21:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The nom's political leanings are not in any way relevant to this discussion (and are not in any event explicitly disclosed on their user page). Please confine your comments to valid policy arguments, and leave assessments of the personal qualities of the involved editors out of the matter -- argue the point, not the qualities of the participants.  Frankly your comments are so over-the-top and unacceptably antagonistic, that (combined with the fact that your account is two days old), I find myself wondering if this a plant and an attempt to discredit the "keep" votes by making them look unnecessarily combative; the tone and content of your arguments are working that strongly against the outcome which you nominally are supporting.  Regardless, please be aware that persisting in non-germane personal attacks may lead to a block on your ability to edit.  S n o w  let's rap 22:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, when you have made inflammatory comments which others have objected to, it is considered appropriate to strike those comments rather deleting/altering them as you did after other editors have already replied; altering your comments changes the way in which the replying editors' comments will be perceived and can be used to game the discussion.  S n o w  let's rap 22:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt per WP:COATRACK and WP:NEOLOGISM. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite very good efforts this remains an unsalvageable coatrack. Maybe leave a redirect, but I'd be fine with salting too. AniMate 23:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Coatrack and inflammatory. GregJackP   Boomer!   23:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt; I can't believe this is up for the fifth time. Any encyclopedic information should be included in Wartime sexual violence.  Mini  apolis  23:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Unsalvageable coatrack about a seldom-used neologism. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. The phrase itself seems refer to a fringe theory, primarily expressed by a small number of commentators on FrontPage Mag (such as Robert Spencer and Andrew C. McCarthy) which has spread to a few places of similar ideological bent; I don't feel that the term or theory are noteworthy enough (or having enough verifiable high-quality sources explicitly covering it) to support an article. Beyond that the article itself seems to have devolved into a WP:COATRACK for editors to gather WP:OR in support of that theory.  Collecting every event they can find related to Islam and sex abuse and lumping them together under the title used for the pet theories of a few talking heads is WP:OR in that they're using article space to advance those theories.  Any article on Rape Jihad (under such a controversial name, and therefore implicitly advancing Spencer's controversial theories and interpretations) would need high-quality, reputable independent sources discussing Spencer et all's theories specifically.  Those don't seem to exist, so if you strip away the original research and synthesis, there's not enough left to support an article -- just a few references to places like FrontPage Magazine, the Gatestone Institute, and the English Defence League using the term or advancing the theory (but never in any really coherent depth.)  Salting seems necessary given the article's repeated recreation.  As my attempts to salvage it show, I'm not completely opposed to the idea of having an article that covers the sorts of anti-Islamic theories advanced by some of these sources (although I'm not sure these specific ones are noteworthy or widespread enough to cover), but it would need to be under another name and would need to be centered around reputable independent sources discussing and critiquing the theories directly rather than on the primary sources that created and advance them, which would mean a new article made from scratch. --Aquillion (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. This is one of the worst articles I have ever seen on Wikipedia. It shames us that we give credibility to English Defence League conspiacy theories and list the Rotherham scandal as evidence of rape jihad - it was absolutely nothing of the sort. This article is a breach of WP:NPOV, the sources are incredibly poor and biased and do not meet WP:RS. The inclusion of the Rotherham and other British scandals as evidence of jihad is beyond satire. Does every Muslim that commits a crime do so in the name of Islamist jihad? Does every Christian who commits a crime do so in the name of fundamentalism or terrorism? The editing here has not been WP:NPOV and decisively WP:BATTLEGROUND. The article is an example of WP:FRINGE. Overwhelming consensus has always been to delete. Let's get it done with. AusLondonder (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt per numerous others — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The closing admin may want to remember to salt both the titles, with upper and lower case J. -- Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆ talk <sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail  03:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt – The WP:FRINGE article is a non-notable, non-neutral, footnoted, political attack of a poorly sourced, biased WP:NEOLOGISM with a combination WP:POVFORK and WP:EXAMPLEFARM. There aren't any secondary sources meeting reliability standards of WP:V, WP:RS, which has meant that the article has turned it into a WP:COATRACK full of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:POV via WP:BATTLEGROUND.


 * The term/theory mainly expressed by commentators on a right wing magazine has then gone on to spread to those of similar views. Most of the other sources don't discuss the term at all and those that do are unreliable meaning the topic isn't noteworthy enough or has enough significant coverage from independent verifiable sources to support an article. Any encyclopaedic information within the article should be included in Wartime sexual violence and/or Slavery in 21st-century Islamism.


 * The article has recently been improved in line with policy guidelines by uninvolved editors, however, this has just proven that the topic clearly fails WP:GNG. Two previous AfD has ended in delete, so why are we still having this same discussion again?


 * Also worth noting that the two editors with the only two keeps make irrelevant comments about the nominator's talk page containing a communist userbox which has absolutely no bearing on the spirit nomination itself, given the clear valid reason given for it. These personal attacks add nothing to the case of keeping the article other than suggesting that those editors themselves hold biased views as well have weak argument on the matter. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec)*Delete and salt - While WP is not censored, this article is inflammatory and I agree with Tanbircdq that it is full of WP:OR and is a WP:COATRACK and a magnet for editors who are Islamophobic. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 17:04, 11 May 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.