Deletion of Rape jihad (5th nomination)

Comment: this article is a huge pile of |original research propping up a neologism. This is the basic pattern: some article somewhere uses the term "rape jihad" to describe a case of an Islamist organisation or a group of Muslims sexually abusing people. This is used as an excuse to stick in a paragraph of text about that sexual abuse, usually copied from some other article about it and citing references which don't talk about "rape jihad" at all (in the case of the Darfur section the copyist hasn't even bothered to copy across the citations referred to in the footnotes). This is all linked up to conclude that these are all instances of some wider phenomenon called "rape jihad". Very few of the sources cited draw that conclusion, and the ones that do are of very low quality (the main ones are http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11278 this which is a FrontPage Magazine|very unreliable source, and http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/391814/isis-and-rape-jihad-andrew-c-mccarthy this, an |opinion piece). Since the last AfD two paragraphs about the general history of rape in warfare have also been shoved in, despite the fact that the sources don't seem to talk about "rape jihad" at all. I advise against a merge as there is very, very little content that could be used and isn't already present somewhere else and given the history of recreations salting may be a good idea
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NEWSORG)

Comment: per the numerous issues with regard to /, , , , , and so forth; I advise respondents here to check out the talk page discussions for salient details.  I think there remains some potential for a '''merge of some of the content''' into the articles Wartime sexual violence, Sexual slavery, and Slavery in 21st-century Islamism (to whatever limited extent the material which is properly sourced is not already located in those articles).  I also feel that a general article on the topic of sexual terrorism (a more neutral and less inflammatory/coatrackish title for a topic whose notability and verifiability under available sourcing is undeniable) could be of immense value to the project's coverage of sexual violence.  I would not only support such a move as a reasonable middle-ground approach, I'd volunteer as much time as necessary to helping get it off the ground, as its an important and broad topic upon which we have very little coverage at present.  But I suspect that the acrimony attached to ''this'' article may preclude that route in the short term, as some may see it as an end-run around the delete that is likely to occur -- and the "salt" comments above tend to support this supposition, with everyone clearly tired of wrestling this neologism down. So while I think some sort of neutrally-approached article on the broader topic of rape utilized as a means of social control is not only well-advised but probably inevitable, at the moment my support goes to deleting this present article outright, as a non-neutral, inadequately sourced, and otherwise problematic mess
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:SYNTH||WP:COATRACK||WP:POVFORK||WP:NEOLOGISM)

Comment: unsalvageable mess of  and  where the use of sources that do not discuss "rape jihad" is routine
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: RedirectMerge to Wartime sexual violence.  Poorly used neologism, and Wikipedia is not for |neologisms.  Coined by director of "Jihad Watch" who used it in an opinion column, that's not notability. Not seeing any secondary sources meeting reliability standards.  &#8213;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTNEO)

Comment: The  article is a non-notable, non-neutral, footnoted, political attack of a poorly sourced, biased  with a combination  and . There aren't any secondary sources meeting reliability standards of , , which has meant that the article has turned it into a  full of ,  and  via 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:NEOLOGISM||WP:POVFORK||WP:EXAMPLEFARM||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:COATRACK||WP:SYNTH||WP:OR||WP:POV||WP:BATTLEGROUND)

Comment: This is one of the worst articles I have ever seen on Wikipedia. It shames us that we give credibility to English Defence League conspiacy theories and list the Rotherham scandal as evidence of rape jihad - it was absolutely nothing of the sort. This article is a breach of , the sources are incredibly poor and biased and do not meet . The inclusion of the Rotherham and other British scandals as evidence of jihad is beyond satire. Does every Muslim that commits a crime do so in the name of Islamist jihad? Does every Christian who commits a crime do so in the name of fundamentalism or terrorism? The editing here has not been  and decisively . The article is an example of . Overwhelming consensus has always been to delete. Let's get it done with
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:RS||WP:NPOV||WP:BATTLEGROUND||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:NEOLOGISM)