Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 13

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

13 September 2006

Islamikaze

I'm not sure if there's a timer on when a deletion can be reviewed, or in this case a non-deletion, as this articles deletion closed on the 17th of May - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamikaze. I just discovered this AFD and I know it's several months old but the result is wonky. The final result was listed as "no consensus" but from what I can see there are 14 votes for delete and 6 votes for keep, over a 2-1 ruling in favour of deletion. How could the result be "no consensus" when there was an overwhelming move for deletion? –– Lid^(Talk) 15:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I closed it as no consensus after weighing both sides of the argument. Since your deletion review request focuses on !vote count, when I strictly count !votes, this had a 70% consensus to delete which, to my standards (at least back then) was insufficient for an article to get deleted. I haven't closed AfDs in a while, so I don't know how things are now, but back then we used to say "when in doubt, keep". I was in doubt, so I closed it as no consensus. That being said, this was a no consensus closure of an AfD, which is a "weak" closure. There is nothing against renominating this article for AfD, and I would have no objections if that's what you choose to do. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, good close given the presentation by the keep proponents. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Process seems to be okay. Article can always be relisted in future. Query: why is the term described as a "pejorative" alternative name for suicide attacks? Wasn't the term kamikaze a positive term from the point of view of Japanese WWII pilots? It would like calling the term "the ultimate sacrifice" pejorative. Actually, isn't "Islamikaze" a more positive term to describe the terrorist act than "suicide bombing"? I mean unless someone is suggesting that the mixing up of Islam with Japanese history is insulting? Or perhaps its a term people use to avoid the phrase "suicide attack" which some people (e.g. NY Post, I think) find inappropriate? Bwithh 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment My guess would be that this is considered pejorative because its is used exclusively by the enemies of a cause (ie., The West/the US) to over-simplify the motives underlying that cause. WWII Japanese airmen and Islamic jihadists have nothing to do with each other, except that they shared a common foe. Anytime one's enemy oversimplifies one, one is more likely to take insult. Also, none who believed in the jihadist cause would use that term, so its use is pejorative because its use is exclusive to the enemy. Xoloz 20:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, recommend relisting at AfD so we can close this one. ~ trialsanderrors 18:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, the term has gained quite a bit of traction too... it is now at 11,900 google hits. Themindset 22:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. 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)
  • I kinda agree and would say the same at a 2nd AfD, but I was hoping that we can cut this step in the process short and send it back to AfD right away. ~ trialsanderrors 05:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Just a point of information: 7 hits on the term (3 or 4 from mainstream sources); about 34 hits on Google Scholar[1]. If this was relisted for AfD (and I see every "no consensus" closure as a "relist for AfD as soon as possible" flag, but maybe that's just me), I would recommend that the article redirect to an article stub about the person who coined the phrase, Raphael Israeli, who appears to be an encyclopedically notable (possibly controversial) Israeli academic expert on Islam[2][3] - though this particular coinage seems to have gotten only limited usage so far in formal publications. Bwithh 15:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Since we're discussing merit now I get 4 hits on Newsbank, 2 of which are letters to editors. I have no opinion about the author, but his book didn't seem to get much attention. (And as a side note, gfdgf gets ten hits on Goo-Scho. I'm beginning to think this might be an encyclopedic term...) ~ trialsanderrors 19:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, valid per the arguments at AfD, allow relist to see if the neologism still shows signs of currency. Guy 14:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)