Deletion of Jihobbyist

Comment: As evidenced by the 17 refs, and the accompanying text, it is ''not'' a "non-notable neologism mentioned in a few articles".  Rather, it is a notable term, mentioned, ''inter alia'', by ABC News, FOX News, ''PBS NewsHour'', ''The Christian Science Monitor'', ''The Dallas Morning News'',  ''CTC Sentinel'', ''Word Spy'', The Jawa Report, and even outside the U.S. in ''Oneindia News''.  Furthermore, the refs not only reflect ''usage'' of the term, and discussion and explanation ''about'' the term and its meaning, but also ''criticism'' of the term.  Under , this is just the sort of article that warrants a keep.  Nor, of course, is the article a coatrack, which is an article where the subject is used as an empty coat-rack, which ends up being mostly ''obscured'' by the "coats".  That simply hasn't happened here – rather, the subject of the article, the term "jihobbyist", is front and center, and not in the least obscured.  Finally, this is the sort of article that may perhaps attract delete !votes by some who have POVs relating to the I-P conflict; I would hope that the closer will see through bald unsupported rationales asserting that this violates the above guidances, and afford us an NPOV application of the rules in the close
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: the term exists, so go and create a Wikitonary entry.  is a different issue. But '''why''' do people always jump to AfD? It is perfectly straightforward to merge this into Islamic terrorism
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)