Deletion of Rape jihad (2nd nomination)

Comment: Only five of the 35 citations actually mention the term. I would not count afternoon and frontpage as reliable. The ''National Review'' is not unbiased .See the second comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape Jihad by Squeamish. That leaves us with Spencer. Only Spencer and a tiny minority seem to use the term. ing sources that do not discuss the topic and esizing does not imply that the artice is "well-written" or merits inclusion. Anything that needs to be included has already been or can be included in Wartime sexual violence. Removing all off topic information will render it in the same state prior to the deletions. It fails, again, , and I guess Pax should drop the stick and move on
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:BOMBARD||WP:SYNTH||WP:NEO)

Comment: Most of the sources cited do not use this term. This is a  being applied to a notable concept. I cannot say where this information should go. It should be on Wikipedia somewhere, but not under this title and with this kind of  to tie all of these events together without citations. Perhaps turn this into a list article, like "List of X events
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM||WP:SYNTHESIS)