Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamikaze (second 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamikaze

Brought up by myself at DRV[1] over the first deletion result (no consensus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamikaze), a recommendation for a second AfD was put forward. I'll paste the post of User:Samuel Blanning that best describes the reasons for deletion:

There was a significant majority for deletion, and the keep proponents, on whom there is the burden to prove the article's worthiness for an encyclopaedia, did not demonstrate that this is a term discussed by reliable sources (rather than just used in passing). Reliable sources that discuss the term are required if we are to write a verifiable article, as opposed to an article trying to cobble together a meaning from passing mentions (i.e. original research by synthesis). The keep proponents refer only to a Google search (which is worthless, gfdgf, which I typed in by hitting my keyboard at random, turns up over 10,000 hits) and a BBC article which does not mention the word anywhere. Oh, and the famed 'there are other articles like this' argument, which should be cause for immediate speedy deletion until people stop using it. Nothing has apparently altered since the AfD, as the article itself currently only contains a reference to Google Groups, a supposed use by a journalist in his blog which I can't even find in the page linked to, and a use in the title of someone's book. Administrators do of course have discretion in closing AfDs, so I mean no disrespect to Deathphoenix, but deletion review has the discretion to overturn them, and I think we should in this case, even if the AfD is quite old. We could also relist, but in my opinion the old AfD and the non-negotiability of verifiability is sufficient grounds to delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In my own opinion on the matter I see it as nothing more than a tiny internet neologism that hasn't met widespread use beyond non-notable unreliable sources. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Sam Blanning and Lid; non-notable, unverified neologism that fails the WP:NEO criteria.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the findings at DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 03:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- nn neologism. Also, extraordinarily hateful cruft. Fails to assert notability by citation to reliable sources. Morton devonshire 04:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --HappyCamper 04:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 04:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I never once heard this term in my life until seeing this AfD. Resolute 04:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What Resolute pretty much said. I could understand an article on Islamofascism (as much as I find the term ridiculous), but I've never heard this word thrown around. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 05:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Attempting to establish verifibility in non-encyclopedic means, (citing Ghits in the article,) does not count and generally looks ugly. Ghits can be used as supplementary evidence, but not as primary justifcation, (see Wikipedia:Search engine test.) Blogs have traditionally failed WP:V. The book may be able to stand, but not alone. Besides, once you strip out all the unverifiables, there is barely a sentence left, leaving a fish that Wiktionary would throw back. --Roninbk _{t c #} 08:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete. Hatefull? Yes. Ignorant of peoples pain? Yes. But... i am not supposed to care for that, only notability. I remember Problem-reaction-solution that had 20k google hits, going up to 30k after three month, but still geting deleted since i expanded it and thus drew attention to it. And it had even higher life span, used way back in 1998. It did not have a book title, but i have recently discovered that it was used in a swedish major news paper to derogatory "explore" my views. Anyway, i view that wikipedia could benefit from being more inclusive, but considering that it isnt so... i guess it's not.--Striver 10:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. I took a look at the article and added reliable sources for the origin of the term here. According to Raphael Israeli, he coined the term in 1997 and has been using it in his work ever since. Since there are now reliable sources for the term's origin, it satisfies WP:NEO. Alternately, we could merge this page and redirect to Suicide attack, where the term could be listed with the similar terms homicide bomber and genocide bomber. TheronJ 15:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Suicide attack. On reflection, the coinage of the term is verifiable, but I'm not sure it's notable enough for its own page. It's a natural fit to go with the other similar terms in the suicide attack page. TheronJ 16:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • (After finding some more sources, I'm changing my vote to keep; will explain at the bottom of the page). TheronJ 15:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable at all, not in May, not now. Previous AFD ended with a 14-6 majority to Delete, how is consensus to delete defined?--Irishpunktom\^talk 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting neologisms.Edison 17:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, having an article on this little known term helps to further it. Wikipedia's not a soapbox nor a dictionary. (→Netscott) 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While it has a lot of google hits, none of them convince of this a term employed by the people outside of an small internet group. Perhaps sources from the media would convince me otherwise. Arbusto 23:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's not really an internet term -- it's a term coined by one professor, Rafael Israeli. (Google scholar will get you 40 hits, but they're all to Israeli's books and articles, or to people discussing his works). Contrary to the initial nomination, the origin and use of the term are verifiable by reliable sources -- the only question is whether it's notable. TheronJ 00:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. If its used by a scholar and other scholars in discussing his work, then it seems suffecient to keep it. AmitDeshwar 01:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article indicates that one writer uses the term. Absent some greater cultural impact, that is not sufficient. Allon Fambrizzi 03:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
• Delete The standard on neologisms, WP:NEO, says that we need reliable secondary sources about the term, not just ones that use the term. The only reliable sources thus far identified are from the originator, not secondary sources. So this fails WP:NEO and should be deleted. GRBerry 13:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Stuck, see below. GRBerry 22:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm torn about how much work to do on the article, since it seems likely to be deleted. However, there are reliable secondary sources. E.g., Dale F. Eickelman, James Piscatori, Muslim Politics, Princeton University Press, July 26, 2004 ISBN 0-691-12053-6, p. ix ("Islamikaze, a term proposed by an Israeli colleague of Moroccan origin (Israeli 2003), is unlikely to catch on."). Sorry for not including it earlier - I read the WP:NEO section about reliable sources, but missed the primary/secondary distinction. TheronJ 13:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If you have secondary sources, edit them into the article. Otherwise, this article is going to be deleted. --Roninbk _{t c #} 06:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Done. I've added a secondary source establishing the origin of the term. TheronJ 10:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a neologism.--Jersey Devil 06:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I apologize for changing my vote a second time, but I found some more sources. IMHO, most of the reasons stated above no longer apply, as follows.

• Verifiability. Per WP:NEO, the origin of the term is now verified by reliable, secondary sources. As shown by the article, the term was coined by Professor Rafael Israeli in a 1997 article, and Israeli has been using it ever since. US Senator Sam Nunn discusses the coinage of the term in one of his own scholarly articles and discusses whether the distinction between suicidal motives and military motives on the part of the bombers may be helpful in profiling possible bombers. The article also cites to two other scholarly articles attributing the creation of the term to Professor Israeli and discussing the term. In particular, the article as written today seems to address all of Sam Blanning's (and, by incorporation, Lid's) concerns in full.
• Notability: This is closer. Google scholar will get you about 40 hits, most of which are Israeli himself or citations to Israeli. Some people, such as Nunn, have used the term in passing, and Bat Ye'or uses the term repeatedly in her book Eurabia. I'm an inclusionist (plus I just did all that work), so I'd prefer to keep it.

Thanks, TheronJ 15:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Suicide attack. I don't believe this has enough common usage to merit a stand alone article, but it certainly is at least as significant, and at least as well researched, as the terms "Homicide bombing" and "Genocide bombing" which have similar usage and are mentioned as sections in the Suicide attack article. GRBerry 22:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Suicide attack. If editors of Suicide attack wish to briefly mention it, so be it. But a formal merge is not required. Redirection is better than deletion for many reasons, including the fact that this term will never be more than a racist neologism & POV fork of Suicide attacks. Just send everybody back to the neutral non-racist term. JeffBurdges 19:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per thorough rereading of WP:NEO. Guyanakoolaid 10:17, 25 September 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.