Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Jihad (3rd nomination)

Love Jihad

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Love Jihad
• Articles for deletion/Love Jihad (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Love Jihad (3rd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Love Jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable conspiracy theory. It does exist, but I am not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources. Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• ​This article needs some serious work to be compliant with WP:PROFRINGE, but I do see enough high-quality sources to meet the general notability guideline. Here is a sample:
  1. Farokhi, Zeinab (3 September 2020). "Hindu Nationalism, News Channels, and "Post-Truth" Twitter: A Case Study of "Love Jihad"". In Boler, Megan; Davis, Elizabeth (eds.). Affective Politics of Digital Media: Propaganda by Other Means. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-16917-1 – via Google Books.
  2. Sarkar, Tanika (July 2018). "Is love without borders possible?" (PDF). Feminist Review. 119 (1). SAGE Publishing: 7–19. doi:10.1057/s41305-018-0120-0 – via ResearchGate.
  3. Gupta, Charu (19 December 2009). "Hindu women, Muslim men: Love Jihad and conversions" (PDF). Economic and Political Weekly. 44 (51): 13–15.

If the article were rewritten to be primarily based on academic sources like the ones above, I don't think there would be any policy or guideline issues. — Newslinger talk 18:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, an NPOV article would be a good thing. "Indian police arrest suspect in brutal video murder". Agence France-Presse. December 7, 2017. Articles from The Wire [1]. The jstor link above is useless, but google site:jstor.org "love jihad" fiveby(zero) 20:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Definitely. The current state of the article (Special:Permalink/979504384), which portrays Love Jihad as a plausible theory rather than a conspiracy theory, is not acceptable because hoaxes do not belong on Wikipedia. See Talk:Love Jihad § Lead for excerpts from 12 reliable sources describing "Love Jihad" as a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim. Improving (or draftifying) the article would be preferable to deleting it, but it's a violation of WP:PROFRINGE to have a Wikipedia article present a discredited conspiracy theory like "Love Jihad" as a real phenomenon. — Newslinger talk 05:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:TNT. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Undoubtedly notable subject having received significant coverage by millions of reliable sources. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Blatantly notable.★Trekker (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete I agree millions of sources have covered the subject but their motive to cover this subject is: 1) similar to covering any subject which is related to a popular political or religious POV, 2) to discuss political and religious agenda of a number of political parties, religious organizations and individuals. There hasn't been a dedicated research on this subject so far which would highlight all of the well-known events that have occurred related to the subject. Until there has been enough research, or treatment of this subject more than just a plausible theory or political/religious agenda, I think we should just delete the article. Rustam Fan (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)