| Revision as of 10:49, 17 November 2006 editAmerique (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers5,861 edits →[]: fork the content and delete the article← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:53, 17 November 2006 edit undoThestick (talk | contribs)952 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| *'''Keep''' - if the article could be improved, it would be by removing some of the content and turning it into more of a list. The list is as objective as it can get. - ] 09:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' - if the article could be improved, it would be by removing some of the content and turning it into more of a list. The list is as objective as it can get. - ] 09:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' : POV Pushing, Edit wars, more POV pushing, personal agenda's, conflict of interest, Edit wars, Users acting in bad faith, '' some people that haven't even read the article or looked at it's history and don't know why it's up for AfD in the first place claiming that it's 'good' and 'interesting' '', Self published sources, Undue weight given to content in articles that aren't about the sites themselves. For more information, take a look at the article's talk page. So, violation of WP:POINT, misusing WP:V, WP:NPOV among other things. And if you do find the content interesting, it has already been forked into the respective articles of the proposed site(s).And no, this isn't a mere content dispute. And any 'disagreement' over which is the third holiest site isn't from within the Muslim community. It's just propaganda from |
*'''Delete''' : POV Pushing, Edit wars, more POV pushing, personal agenda's, conflict of interest, Edit wars, Users acting in bad faith, '' some people that haven't even read the article or looked at it's history and don't know why it's up for AfD in the first place claiming that it's 'good' and 'interesting' '', Self published sources, Undue weight given to content in articles that aren't about the sites themselves. For more information, take a look at the article's talk page. So, violation of WP:POINT, misusing WP:V, WP:NPOV among other things.'' And if you do find the content interesting, it has already been forked into the respective articles of the proposed site(s)''.And no, this isn't a mere content dispute. And any 'disagreement' over which is the third holiest site isn't from within the Muslim community. It's just propaganda from the Israeli-Arab situation that some users want to push on wikipedia (WP is not a soapbox). ] 10:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' in favor of redistributing all noteworthy content to individual articles on particular sites. The title change to me does not solve the matter of the "third holiest site" ultimately being a ''theological designation'' and not a linguistic or a political one or a matter that can be authoritatively addressed outside of scholastic, peer-reviewed literature on the topic, written by theologians. Keeping all the sites lumped together like this as if the respective assertions from various sources were all of equal value or weight seems to me, on its face, to be a misapplication of the NPOV policy, if a well-intended one by most of the editors who worked on improving this article. I think everyone involved would be better off putting these debates behind us by forking the content and deleting the article. --]<sup><small><font color="DarkRed">]</font></small></sup> 10:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' in favor of redistributing all noteworthy content to individual articles on particular sites. The title change to me does not solve the matter of the "third holiest site" ultimately being a ''theological designation'' and not a linguistic or a political one or a matter that can be authoritatively addressed outside of scholastic, peer-reviewed literature on the topic, written by theologians. Keeping all the sites lumped together like this as if the respective assertions from various sources were all of equal value or weight seems to me, on its face, to be a misapplication of the NPOV policy, if a well-intended one by most of the editors who worked on improving this article. I think everyone involved would be better off putting these debates behind us by forking the content and deleting the article. --]<sup><small><font color="DarkRed">]</font></small></sup> 10:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 10:53, 17 November 2006
Third holiest site in Islam (expression)
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Third holiest site in Islam
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Third holiest site in Islam (second nomination)
- Third holiest site in Islam (expression) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The first AfD was closed as no consensus. The second AfD, closed as procedural speedy keep was overturned at WP:DRV. This is a procedural relisting and I abstain. Please consider prior discussions above when discussing and closing. ~ trialsanderrors 08:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Please also skim through previous AFD before using this page. That will help to decide you better. Thank you--- ALM 10:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Article has improved with the removal of "tourist-guide" references and the addition of reliable sources confirming significant disagreement over identity of certain sites. Avi 08:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete The point is not that the article has tourist guide information or not, but the point is that how much is it related to mainstream Islam and would it support that. We don't even have a single WP:RS and WP:V compatible source, that would assert this conclusion. Even the name of the article is a grave violation of WP:NPOV. TruthSpreader 08:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as this still seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information without any real purpose. That such and such location is mentioned as the third holiest site in Islam can be placed on the location's page itself. BhaiSaab 08:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- BhaiSaab 08:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If that is a dispute between Shia/Sunni then many Shia should be editing here and voting for keep. Where are they? I found no Shai but only people related to Israel editing there. Obviously, we all Muslim think Jerusalem as our third holiest site and very important for Muslims and it used to be our first Kaba. In the early days of Islam prior to the hijra and until the beginning of the seventh month after hijra Muslims offered salat facing towards Jerusalem. . These people related to Israel want to make it disputed using fake media/travel-websites sources. Those sources are already discussed in above AFD. Do you think the article name is right? Third holiest site in Islam..??? Should we also create articles about First holiest site in Islam, Second holiest site in Islam, Fourth holiest site in Islam, Fifth holiest site in Islam and so on? All Muslims in last AFD have voted to delete the article hence apparently they do not think the information mentioned in this article is right. Which Shia is fighting to keeping this article? However, some people like Avi who never worked in any Islamic article and active in Jews article become interested in this one? Mostly Jew editors in last AFD voted for Keep. Do not you smell that something here is extremely wrong and they have created this article to deny Jerusalem importance in Muslims eyes? Oh I should be stupid and continue to assuming WP:AGF despite all the things I see open and clear? Please delete this POV conspiracy article and merge any useful material here in Ziyarat article. Please do not create a reason to hate wikipedia with the existence of this conspiracy article. --- ALM 09:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep; maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like a good article topic to me. The "expression" in the title is weird to me; why not just have the article at "Third holiest site in Islam" (which is a redirect)? Everyking 09:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - if the article could be improved, it would be by removing some of the content and turning it into more of a list. The list is as objective as it can get. - Richardcavell 09:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete : POV Pushing, Edit wars, more POV pushing, personal agenda's, conflict of interest, Edit wars, Users acting in bad faith, some people that haven't even read the article or looked at it's history and don't know why it's up for AfD in the first place claiming that it's 'good' and 'interesting' , Self published sources, Undue weight given to content in articles that aren't about the sites themselves. For more information, take a look at the article's talk page. So, violation of WP:POINT, misusing WP:V, WP:NPOV among other things. And if you do find the content interesting, it has already been forked into the respective articles of the proposed site(s).And no, this isn't a mere content dispute. And any 'disagreement' over which is the third holiest site isn't from within the Muslim community. It's just propaganda from the Israeli-Arab situation that some users want to push on wikipedia (WP is not a soapbox). thestick 10:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete in favor of redistributing all noteworthy content to individual articles on particular sites. The title change to me does not solve the matter of the "third holiest site" ultimately being a theological designation and not a linguistic or a political one or a matter that can be authoritatively addressed outside of scholastic, peer-reviewed literature on the topic, written by theologians. Keeping all the sites lumped together like this as if the respective assertions from various sources were all of equal value or weight seems to me, on its face, to be a misapplication of the NPOV policy, if a well-intended one by most of the editors who worked on improving this article. I think everyone involved would be better off putting these debates behind us by forking the content and deleting the article. --Amerique 10:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Lindsay, James (2005). Daily Life in the Medieval Islamic World. Greenwood Press. pp. 142–143. ISBN.