Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (5th nomination)

Rape jihad (5th nomination)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Rape Jihad
• Articles for deletion/Rape jihad
• Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (5th nomination)

Rape jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)

@Раціональне анархіст: 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. ― Padenton|✉   19:54, 10 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/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. ― Padenton|✉   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. ― Padenton|✉   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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   18:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   18:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   18:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   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)

• 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 ([[User:FreeatlastChitchat|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. Pax 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^{✆ talk}_{✉ 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. Pax 20:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)