Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudden jihad syndrome


 * 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. --Core desat  03:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sudden jihad syndrome


Neogolism that seems to be not all that verifiable, and one guy's WP:OR. Contested prod. Leuko 03:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * SJS is an ongoing phenomenon Dr Pipes IS Updated developments and is aware of this Wiki contribution and approves of it and supplied 3 more instances to elucidate the scriptural basis for the syndrome & does so with out using words like Neogolism.KAOSKTRL — KAOSKTRL (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * That the article doesn't use the word "neologism" doesn't mean that the article isn't original research. So far, all that the article tells us is that this is a syndrome invented by Daniel Pipes, used in xyr on-line articles, and acknowledged by no-one else.  Everything in Wikipedia must have been through a processs of fact checking, peer review, publication, and acceptance into the general corpus of human knowledge.  That means acknowledgement, and hence documentation, by people other than Daniel Pipes.  Ideas that have yet to spread beyond their creators do not belong here, per our No original research policy.  So please cite people other than Daniel Pipes documenting this purported syndrome. Uncle G 17:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

*Keep it This is a new phenomenom and it will continue and more research will be forthcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KAOSKTRL (talk • contribs)
 * Delete, the article may never use the term "neologism", but that is exactly what this is, a neologism coined by Daniel Pipes that has not entered the broader lexicon of usage. As Uncle G stated above, this also is original research as evidenced by the fact that there is no supporting evidence that anyone else has picked up the concept and acknowledged or critiqued it (other than in distinctly non-reliable source blogs).--Isotope23 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism without widespread usage, and the article being original research. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 20:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 22:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - A WP:POV WP:OR by a WP:SPA without WP:RS. =))) --Nehwyn 09:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - appears to violate a significant number of Wikipedia policies (as per above comments).   In response to KAOSKTRL's comment, your comment seems to indicate that the topic is currently non-notable and non-verifiable.  If it becomes notable and verifiable in the future, the article can be re-created at that time.  --Tim4christ17 talk 02:28, 14 November 2006 (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.