Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihadi

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 Keep with expansion. References provided show that its verifiable and in use which pulls it out of the realm of WP:NEO, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. More than one individual indicates they feel it could be more than a stub, if no expansion is forth-coming in a reasonable time, propose a merge to an appropriate article. Crossmr 23:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jihadi

Contested prod. Dicdef, neologism. WP:WINAD, WP:NEO. -- Fan-1967 23:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep "Neologism", in the sense its used in Wikipedia delete discussions, means essentially "some word or phrase made up by some small group which hasn't got mainstream recognition". One minute of Google finds the word used, in the meaning described here, by Christian Science Monitor, Time magazine, NPR, and the Los Angeles Times. A marge into something like Islamic fundamentalism might be a good idea, but there's plenty to be said about subject of young muslim men becoming radicalised and taking on an extreme worldview in which Jihad simply means "unconditional war". Middenface 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Jihad. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Middenface and also this reference show that it has had enough discussion not to be affected by the reasoning behing the neologism guideline. It can be more than a dictionary definition and it is not the same as Jihad which is about the activity, this is an adjective about the type of people involved. Ansell 03:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not an adjective. It's a noun (per the article, at least). If it were an adjective it would be the wrong title for the article per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives), by the way. And the best response to the claim that something is a dictionary definition is not "It's an adjective." but "This isn't a dictionary article about the word 'jihadi'. It's an encyclopaedia article about a type of person, and can be more than a perpetual stub encyclopaedia article.". Uncle G 09:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I think I was wrong to portray it as an adjective so definitely. It is uses in contexts such as "Jihadi War" [1] and "jihadi suicide culture" [2] which make the definition pretty clear to be a noun as it is always referring to a group of people with the characteristic of making Jihad. It could be more than a perpetual stub article as you say. The commentary from numerous sources shows that. [3] Wikipedia is worried about Neologisms because of the No original research and Neutrality policies mainly, both of which seem to be okay in this context. Ansell 08:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jihad. Could just as easily be covered there. If it gets to big it could always be split back out.--Isotope23 17:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Why could it not be developed from a stub on the current location? Ansell 08:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep eminently verifiable, commonly used term that doesn't mean the same thing as Jihad. MLA 14:13, 22 August 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.