Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad state

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 of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad state

Delete - Jihad state seems to be a very poorly written and utterly misguided article. As far as I know, the term is not used anywhere. It seems to be a POV article. MP (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That only shows how little you know on the subject, even though it includes many of the more important native monarchies of Muslim Africa, another good reason to devote an article to it. A simple google shows over 300 hits, including a few book titles. Fastifex 13:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete. Listing now. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 0 hits on Google news. A search on Amazon.com shows that 3 different books use the term. (one as part of the title). Doesnt actually seem to be in the same context, but it's hard to tell. It seems like every reference I see for this phrase is referring to the "The Reign of Hisham Ibn'Abd Al-Malik" whoever that is. I'm leaning towards Delete since the phrase seems to be fairly non-notable. I can be convinced otherwise... ---J.S (t|c) 19:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - non-notable neologism. (I'm sorry, 300 Google hits does not make an article). Madman 21:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Jihad doesn't even mean holy war, or anything to do with violence. something to do with working to please god. sort of like how the crusades can't be shown as the opinion of all christians. Pure inuyasha 03:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ahhh, here "jihad, sometimes spelled Jahad, Jehad or Djehad, (Arabic: جهاد‎ ǧihād) is an Islamic term, from the Arabic root ǧhd ("to exert utmost effort, to strive, struggle"), which connotes a wide range of meanings: anything from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to a political or military struggle to further the Islamic cause. Individuals involved in the political or military forms of jihad are often labeled with the neologism "jihadist". The term "jihad" is often rendered in western languages and non-Islamic cultures as "holy war", but this "physical" struggle, which encompasses warfare, only makes up part of the broader meaning of the concept of jihad. The denotation is of a struggle, challenge, difficulty, or (frequently) opposed effort, made either in accomplishment or as resistance. A person who engages in any form of jihad can be called a mujahid (in plural: mujahadin) (Arabic: striver, struggler), a term even more often applied to groups who practice armed struggle in the name of Islam. He might engage in fighting as a military struggle for religious reasons, or for example, struggle to memorize the Qur'an." Pure inuyasha 03:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fastifex, if you want to write an article about a book which has the phrase, 'Jihad state' in it's title, then go ahead. I repeat, the term 'Jihad state' is not in popular use, and hence there should not be an article about it. The concept of Jihad is already adequately discussed. The term 'Jihad state' is not worth devoting an article to any more than the phrase 'Beckham Golden Balls' is (and that is a popular term !). MP (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to leave out subjects just because they aren't in popular use, we're not writing an encyclopaedia but a childish rag. Jihad states in the restricted sense (some anonymous reedit extended it dubiously, unsourced, and messed up the jihad use) are a major component of the history of West Africa, certainly more important then anything to do with sports or celebrities (which nevertheless deserve their place to). Resepectable websites on history and dynasties (with vast bibliographies) cerainly know about them and use the (almost self-explicatory) term for whicj I know no alternative in use.

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.