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 no consensus. !voters generally agree that the subject is notable, but there is no consensus whether this is
WP:TNT material or not (roughly equivalent headcounts of !deleting and !keeping). Since there is no consensus to delete the article, I suggest improving it based on the sources presented here.
(non-admin closure) (
t ·
c) buidhe21:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)reply
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:
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. — Newslingertalk18:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)reply
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. — Newslingertalk05:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per Fiveby (below). The amount of reliable scholarship available far exceeds what is needed to establish that "Love Jihad" is a notable conspiracy theory under
WP:GNG. In fact, there is more scholarship on the "Love Jihad" conspiracy theory than there is on the
QAnon conspiracy theory—a subject for which Wikipedia also has an article. The article needs to be significantly rewritten to afford the scholarship its
due weight, of course. As a second choice, I can support deleting the article under
WP:TNT and then immediately recreating it with policy- and guideline-compliant content;
salting is completely inappropriate here. — Newslingertalk01:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Strohl, David James (2019). "Love jihad in India's moral imaginaries: religion, kinship, and citizenship in late liberalism". Contemporary South Asia. 27 (1): 27–39.
Tyagi, Aastha (2020). "Love-Jihad (Muslim Sexual Seduction) and ched-chad (sexual harassment): Hindu nationalist discourses and the Ideal/deviant urban citizen in India". Gender, Place & Culture. 27 (1): 104–125.
Saxena, Saumya (2018). "'Court'ing Hindu nationalism: law and the rise of modern Hindutva". Contemporary South Asia. 26 (4).
Waikar, Prashant (2018). "Reading Islamophobia in Hindutva: An Analysis of Narendra Modi's Political Discourse". Islamophobia Studies Journal. 4 (3).
JSTOR10.13169.
Delete and salt It is indeed unclear how the subject should be treated and the jumbling of cases involving "interreligion marriage" and "fraud marriage" even by the reliable sources has made it even more difficult. I also note that
Rape jihad was salted after
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (5th nomination). We can wait until there is more notability and clarity about the subject and coverage independent from Indian political parties, Myanmar politics and religious groups that have made allegation of the existence of this concept per
WP:NOTINHERITED. For that we will need much better sources than what we currently have.
Azuredivay (
talk)
17:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. The justification for deletion (as a not-notable conspiracy theory) is simply not valid. There is a significant number of RS on this subject, as one can see from the referencing on the page and references provided during this discussion (see above). Just not liking the subject (I do not like it too) is not a valid reason for deletion.
My very best wishes (
talk)
17:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep passes GNG. Conspiracy theory or not, this has been in the news almost every week for the past 10 years, so there are adequate sources to meet the notability criteria.
M4DU7 (
talk)
02:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment the topic definitely gets it due media coverage but the article is in bad shape. Its trying to push the POV that its possible rather than it being a conspiracy theory. Not surprisingly the idea as propagated by extreme right wing groups find its inspiration in Mein Kampf
[2]. Probably the article fits
WP:TNT case for a complete rewrite based solely on academic sourcing.
Roller26 (
talk)
14:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)reply
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.
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 no consensus. !voters generally agree that the subject is notable, but there is no consensus whether this is
WP:TNT material or not (roughly equivalent headcounts of !deleting and !keeping). Since there is no consensus to delete the article, I suggest improving it based on the sources presented here.
(non-admin closure) (
t ·
c) buidhe21:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)reply
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:
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. — Newslingertalk18:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)reply
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. — Newslingertalk05:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per Fiveby (below). The amount of reliable scholarship available far exceeds what is needed to establish that "Love Jihad" is a notable conspiracy theory under
WP:GNG. In fact, there is more scholarship on the "Love Jihad" conspiracy theory than there is on the
QAnon conspiracy theory—a subject for which Wikipedia also has an article. The article needs to be significantly rewritten to afford the scholarship its
due weight, of course. As a second choice, I can support deleting the article under
WP:TNT and then immediately recreating it with policy- and guideline-compliant content;
salting is completely inappropriate here. — Newslingertalk01:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Strohl, David James (2019). "Love jihad in India's moral imaginaries: religion, kinship, and citizenship in late liberalism". Contemporary South Asia. 27 (1): 27–39.
Tyagi, Aastha (2020). "Love-Jihad (Muslim Sexual Seduction) and ched-chad (sexual harassment): Hindu nationalist discourses and the Ideal/deviant urban citizen in India". Gender, Place & Culture. 27 (1): 104–125.
Saxena, Saumya (2018). "'Court'ing Hindu nationalism: law and the rise of modern Hindutva". Contemporary South Asia. 26 (4).
Waikar, Prashant (2018). "Reading Islamophobia in Hindutva: An Analysis of Narendra Modi's Political Discourse". Islamophobia Studies Journal. 4 (3).
JSTOR10.13169.
Delete and salt It is indeed unclear how the subject should be treated and the jumbling of cases involving "interreligion marriage" and "fraud marriage" even by the reliable sources has made it even more difficult. I also note that
Rape jihad was salted after
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (5th nomination). We can wait until there is more notability and clarity about the subject and coverage independent from Indian political parties, Myanmar politics and religious groups that have made allegation of the existence of this concept per
WP:NOTINHERITED. For that we will need much better sources than what we currently have.
Azuredivay (
talk)
17:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. The justification for deletion (as a not-notable conspiracy theory) is simply not valid. There is a significant number of RS on this subject, as one can see from the referencing on the page and references provided during this discussion (see above). Just not liking the subject (I do not like it too) is not a valid reason for deletion.
My very best wishes (
talk)
17:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep passes GNG. Conspiracy theory or not, this has been in the news almost every week for the past 10 years, so there are adequate sources to meet the notability criteria.
M4DU7 (
talk)
02:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment the topic definitely gets it due media coverage but the article is in bad shape. Its trying to push the POV that its possible rather than it being a conspiracy theory. Not surprisingly the idea as propagated by extreme right wing groups find its inspiration in Mein Kampf
[2]. Probably the article fits
WP:TNT case for a complete rewrite based solely on academic sourcing.
Roller26 (
talk)
14:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)reply
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.