Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xtremedood (talk | contribs) at 03:15, 14 April 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Love Jihad

its all about the failure of a campus love and now it is in the hands story makers with their own titile version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mshibum (talk • contribs) 10:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

I believe the article doesn't satisfy notability guidelines as WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Having a few newsreports(even if they are from reliable sources) do not warrant a separate article.

The core of the article contain synthesised information - the sources mostly talk about a court case and allegations by some organizations about "Love Jihad", but there is no other reference about the existence of such an organization or its "activity" as it is put in the article. Zencv 09:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep well sourced, but needs a cleanup UltraMagnus 12:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I did not have a problem with the sources - but within the sources, the term "Love Jihad" has only vague references. As it is a non-existing organization, it is unlikely to get cleaned up or improved and we should think whether we need an article for every reference in every newssources Zencv 20:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    • well, that is because it is a concept, not an organisation. --UltraMagnus 15:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment Can you go through the sources and present the concept in a way that is suitable for an article? You are welcome to give it a try Zencv 17:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I feel Zencv Gaming to kick out the article (s)he don't interested. Currently article is well sourced and every source has the phrase "LOVE JIHAD" top to bottom--Purger.kl (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC) — Purger.kl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Whatever you feel, as this comment is the only edit you made in WP altogether, read good faith. An article's merit is not based on the number of phrases occuring in the article Zencv 08:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment You previously said "the term "Love Jihad" has only vague references", now saying it is not important--Purger.kl (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Where did I write about importance? I only wrote that those vague references are conveniently synthesised to present "Love Jihad" as an activity. Anyway, what was your point when you wrote every source has the phrase "LOVE JIHAD" top to bottom??? I can start any article where I can fill it with phrases top to bottom from the same sources. Zencv 17:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I click on the Google News search at the top of the AFD, and see plenty of notable coverage of this. I read through, and I see other notable mention in reliable sources as well. This is a real phenomenon. Dream Focus 14:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no such phenomenon. TOI is a RS, but it only mentions some allegations by some Catholic and Hindu orgs. which was then ordered by a court to investigate. The question is whether we have to cherrypick such a phrase from the source and create an article for a non existing activity for which there is NO proof and for which there exist no other sources Zencv 17:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The link I provided reads at the top

• Delete. Newspaper sensation of the week. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep its a new concept and started to get attention in September 1,2 this term love jihad is used even in the PTI (Press Trust of India).All major news papers in India covered this news. I also feel Zencv Gaming to kick out the article he don't interested.:Lee2008 (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Read fourth point under WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Zencv 20:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

what do you think about this news (announcements, sports or tabloid) if you are taking about neutrality you can edit with sufficient evidence. Lee2008 (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • Having this news in another article(eg: NDF, which had been accused of doing this "activity") in a context is OK, but I dont think these news merit an article of its own Zencv 18:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. However new a phenomenon it may be ("Newspaper sensation of the week.") it's certainly well-documented as a planned, organized effort. The fact that "The core of the article contain synthesised information." is irrelevant so long as we are not the synthesizers. -MBHiii (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment This is funny - I thought it is our job also to make sure that synthesised article don't make it unfairly. The starting sentence goes like "Love Jihad or Romeo Jihad is an activity under which young Muslim boys reportedly target college girls for conversion to Islam by feigning love." which is not supported by any source. We may have to change it to "alleged" activity as the sources just talk about an allegation. But then the article will have fair share of weasel words. Still comes the question, where to find sources which would support the existence of such an activity or organization. The only thing which can be written in the article about "Love Jihad" would be allegations and appeal by the court to investigate Zencv 20:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how carefully you read the ref. cit. for that first sentence. About the only thing I'd support changing is "young Muslim boys" to "young Muslim men". -MBHiii (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I have read the sources - there are 2 grave problems. 1) This whole thing is just an allegation(allegation is well cited, I dont dispute that) by some organizations and the decision by a court to investigate the allegation. 2) It is just overhyped and sensationalized - the incidents allegedly happened in some isolated parts of India - the way it is cited in the article given an impression that this is sort of a global activity(like Al Qaeda). In my opinion, it is impossible to put these things in a neutral way Zencv 18:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as a well-cited and growing phenomena that has received significant coverage in reliable sources. With respects to Zencv... and while not meaning to wax... Yes, Misplaced Pages might properly look askance at overhyped and sensationalized subjects or subjects whose existance is alleged. But real or not, once WP:GNG is met with coverage in reliable sources, the inclusion standards have been met. Dispite any editor's personal feelings about the subject itself, the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with you with respect to verifiability, not truth, which is clear to me. The problem I find is that unlike Flying saucer, the respectable sources here are ambivalent at best whether there exists an organization called "Love Jihad", or in general what exactly is "Love Jihad". There are some polemic articles from questionable references which are cited in the article(Frontpage being one of them) which present as if it is truth. Flying saucer may be a myth popularized through television, but within that context, one can easily explain what Flying saucer is in a way that suits an article in any respectable encyclopedia. It is rather difficult in this case is the reason why we have sentences like So far, little is known about the group behind the "love jihad", but it is alleged to be linked to a fundamentalist Muslim group called the Popular Front of India and its student wing Campus Front - which they deny Zencv 21:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Seems a metter for cleanup then, and not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
      • So then perhaps we difer a bit on our interpretations of significant coverage that meets WP:GNG ? Few government bodies ever admit to problems until after the popular press has forced acknowledgement... so their waffling is of no surprise. That an ongoing problem is being investigated and given significant coverage in such reliable sources as Press Trust of India (1), Times of India, Express Buzz (1), Times of India (2), Times of India (3), Times of India (4), Christian Today, Zee News, The Hindu, Union of Catholic Asian News, Times of India (5), Express Buzz (2) (among dozens more exploring the subject), has convinced me that the WP:GNG has been met. And unlike Flying saucers or the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot, this subject appears to have far greater substance and less smoke and mirrors or wishful thinking. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - While the allegations are hysterical, the existence (well sourced and notable) means this page should exist. Zencv's gaming and revert warring over this term is getting tiresome.Pectore 02:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I haven't reverted anything here - instead have been an active participant in the discussion. Not only that you failed to assume good faith, it looks like you barely read the article, its edit history and this discussion Zencv 19:02, 23 October 2009 (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.

• Delete - This article, although having a lot of sources is written to propagate a racist conspiracy theory that promotes ideas that have been proven as false. Since there is no empirical evidence for this phenomenon and the claims of the proponents of this theory are largely based on hate, racism, bigotry, and sensationalist propaganda, this clearly violates Misplaced Pages's policies pertaining to hate-speech and biased information. I believe that this article should be deleted as it poses no constructive benefit to Misplaced Pages, rather it is aimed at promoting intolerance and false-worldviews. Xtremedood (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)