Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex 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   no consensus. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sex Jihad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NEO very few hits on google for this term Darkness Shines (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism. All insurgents/soldiers/rebels likely have sex from time to time; no need to tell that in encyclopedia. jni (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't mix up things. It is not just about having sex. It is about muslim woman prostituting themselves, in some cases even involuntarily, in the name of religion and as part of Jihad. Keep--Markus2685 (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Of the five sources on the article, all of them are only months old. Not only is it a neologism but it seems to be one of very limited use. A buzz word used in literally just a handful of Internet headlines does not an article make. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Several sources report the phenomena and it is a new phrase for what is new to Western readers. Let the article grow as the sources expand. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. And the sources are lousy. The only half-way decent one is the IBT and that too is iffy because IBT is primarily a business news site. --regentspark (comment) 13:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. The IBT source is also calling the campaign a hoax. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Hoax or not, the concept seems to be notable.  Maybe its better covered under some Syrian war propaganda discussion, but a stand alone article seems defensible, as readers are going to try to look this up.  Like the Sex drive-in people do look to see this is a real thing.--Milowent • hasspoken  04:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not WP:NEO. It is the English translation of an Arabic term. Also, it seems to be an important concept of Jihad in the Syrian war, having effects as far as Tunisia. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The arabic term itself falls under WP:NEO.--Benfold (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Seems notable. It should be Renamed to Sexual jihad, though. -- Auric    talk  18:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems notable? 209,000 results As for your rename suggestion, 76,900 results This is certainly a WP:NEO Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage of this notable topic here, enough for significant expansion and improvement potential in the future. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, this was covered in one of the most reputable danish national newspapers today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CygnusPius (talk • contribs) 20:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fence sitter I think it's a hard call whether this is truly notable or some of the standard link bait stories from online newspapers. WP:GOOGLEHITS is a bad argument to make about notability as we care about the quality of the sources (I'd agree they aren't great). I also don't think this is exactly a neologism as this article isn't about the specific phrase (i.e it could be changed to Jihad Al-Nikah easily enough with no impact on the article). The real question is whether the issuing of the fatwa was a notable event and the criteria people should be looking at is the WP:EVENT. It satisfies the coverage criterion, but apparently not the depth criterion, but I wouldn't venture whether it should be kept or deleted. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is noteworthy. I however believe it is best titled Jihad al Nikah as that is its correct technical term. Is the push for deletion an attempt to censor information and prevent learning, the very purpose of an encyclopedia? AchisDeGeth (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC) — AchisDeGeth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * How it is noteworthy? Even the cited source tells it a hoax! Please, read WP:NEO.--Benfold (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not quite. The bulk of the article is about the Syrian War and the recruitment of women for those fights. The article you cite (and which you put into Sex Jihad) is a conspiracy theory in Egypt of which there are many and many . Jason from nyc (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per norms. The article's tone doesnot maintain a neutral point of view. The article creator has a history of creating such NOTNEO articles. This shows most of the pages created by the editor are on massacares of Hindus in villages of Bangladesh during 1971 war with Pakistan while the cited sources actually reveals that genocides happened against Bengali people irrespective of whether they are Hindus or Muslims.--Benfold (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: At this point, with reliable sources stating that the government of Tunisia is responding to this phenomenon, "sexual jihad" would remain notable even if eventually proved to be some kind of hoax; it would be a notable hoax.  Jihad al-nikah appears to meet the requirements for notability due to coverage in reliable sources; I came to this article due to looking up the phenomenon after reading a Reuters news piece about it.  --DavidK93 (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The coverages can meet for the Wikinews but not an encyclopedic article per WP:NEO. The term is not widely known in Muslim world plus there are reliable sources like this that describes the claims from the Tunisian interior minister as unconfirmed.--Benfold (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that Sex Jihad is a neologism or just the title of the article. If it is the subject and the subject is well-sourced we can change the title. It's also not clear to me that this shouldn't be merged but I can't figure out where. War Rape? Prostitution in Syria? None seem to fit the bill. It doesn't belong in Jihad because it isn't part of Islam. It's clearly a fringe phenomena that is part of the Syrian Civil War. But it is being widely reported across a broad spectrum of news organizations. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been reported, but I don't think the spectrum is necessarily broad. Two of those sources - Shabestan news agency and Shiitenews - are polemical Sunni/Shi'a hate sites that most just "report" propaganda to make one denomination or the other look bad. Removing those would cut the sources down to six. Do six sources, all of which popped up very recently, prove this is a legit term which will be used in the future rather than just a neologism that popped up for a brief period of time in six sources? That seems to be the question here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a lot more to choose from than six, see google news. As has already been outlined, this isn't about the term, so it can't fail WP:NEO/WP:DICDEF. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - even if, or especially as, it is a well-documentable hoax. Bearian (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been swayed by the arguments that this is really a news story or neologism that may not last beyond the next news cycle, and is merely a recent phrase, thus it should not be included without better evidence of notability. Delete. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - a hoax WP:NOTNEO violation. Utterly unencyclopedic, and a recent thing, showing no evidence of sustained usage. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is about the concept (which is still appearing in the media: ) not the neologism. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - This article contains false information, It's meet the criteria for deletion rapid --Mohammedbas (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think is false? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing called Sex Jihad or Jihad-Al-Nikah --Mohammedbas (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources say otherwise contrary to your point of view and clear indication that you don't like it. It's a topic that's been discussed in the media. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - "Sex jihad" or "Jihad-Al-Nikah" are completely NEW terms being used by some people and media recently for Syria war. This practice was never there in Islam during the time of Prophet Mohammad(pbuh) nor after that. There is no authenticity of it in Islam. So, it is clear that connecting "sex jihad" to other established terms of Islam like "muslim women", "jihad", "establishment of Islamic rule" etc is nothing but a negative propaganda to insult people of a particular religion. An article at wikipedia can not be ill motivated and should be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tareq2013 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete There is evidence against this ever happening especially on a wide scale basis. The Islamic clergy cited and those close to him denied the claims stated here tying them to the act. An Encyclopedia must include facts, not rumors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmedGahelrasoul (talk • contribs) 15:35, September 25, 2013 — AhmedGahelrasoul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * An encyclopedia must contain notable hoaxes, however. So even if this practice is a myth (and I agree I've seen no hard proof it exists in reliable Western media), there has been so much coverage about it, its a clear keep.--Milowent • hasspoken  16:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia doesn't have to include anything of the sort. There's no evidence this is anything other than a passing fad. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, an encyclopedia must include notable hoaxes. You might as well call Mary Toft a passing fad.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. This "sex jihad" thing has been in the news for a very short time. Mary Toft's case has been cited and commented on nearly 300 years later. That's a stupid comparison. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But she really give birth to rabbits?--Milowent • hasspoken 03:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you stoned? This "sex jihad" thing has been mentioned in the news for a very short period of time. Mary Toft has received coverage 250-300 years after her death. You claiming that her incident was a "passing fad" in order to defend this "sex jihad" thing is ludicrous in the extreme. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Don't be naive. Sex jihad was acknowledged by the Tunisian government.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply to comment people keep deleting: This is not a policy-based reason to keep, 24.90.57.129. If anything, your comment brings to light the realities of Sunni-Shia friction which much of the Western world doesn't really understand.  So, its not surprising that an evidence-free concept like Sex jihad would get broad coverage in Western media, clueless to the fact that there is every reason to be skeptical of both sides.--Milowent' • hasspoken  19:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Inherently subjective article. Not an encyclopedic topic. Wikifan115 (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is based on reliable sources like The Times, The Huffington Post, The Daily Telegraph. The Jihad Al-Nikah is obviously part of the Jihad, which is an encyclopedic topic, and is executed in the name of Jihad. The term "sexual Jihad" is even used by muslim sources like the Iranian Fars News Agency.. see this article Al-Qaeda’s Indecent Proposal to Widows. Also the muslim major Al Arabia news agency talks of a sexual jihad and says, that The issue is not strange. If young men are going there to die in the name of religion, it is not unlikely that women will go there to serve them sexually under the false belief that this is a form of jihad. see Sexual jihad: propaganda or truth?--Markus2685 (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|20px|alt=|link=]] — Duplicate !vote: Markus2685 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.


 * Delete, a recently coined neologism. If the term catches on and use persists then the article should be recreated, but there's not much right now that would indicate this is a term used beyond a small number of news publishers.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC).
 * Yeah, except for the massive number of news publishers that have used it.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * However, the term is not the subject of the discussion; we are meant to be discussing whether the phenomenon of women giving themselves sexually to jihadis is notable. The correct title for the article could be discussed separately.  --DavidK93 (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bearian. The term is only within the scope of recent Syrian war plus not-notable like Comfort women --Bisswajit (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I got 2,300,000 results in Google Search. It is not anyway a term with little usage. Chris1636 (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Lankiveil. There's no indication that this sexy buzzword will have any sort of lasting significance. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 30 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.