Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third holiest site in Islam (expression)

Third holiest site in Islam (expression)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third holiest site in Islam

Wikipedia: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)
  • Please stop pushing your POV by deleting references you do not like and creating controversy from a fact recognized by OIC that consists of all the Muslim majority countries. --- ALM 18:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Please see here: I removed the POV of "western personalities" (unless you feel that all the Iraqis quoted are also western) and fixed your citation to use wikipedia templates. I have shown in great detail here how you unfortunately only quote partial sources when the whole source would tend to repudiate your point, so I would suggest you re-study WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Thank you. -- Avi 18:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You have still removed the fact that ALL Muslims majority countries are member of OIC (see OIC page). Can you put it back because I want to avoid WP:3RR? I never quoted a source unless I am sure about it. It must be some other person? You read WP:CITE and do not revert the material when it is cited. thanks. --- ALM 18:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I did something even better, I wikilinked OIC to its wikipedia article. This way, there is no need to bog down the opening paragraph with statistics, as everything you want to know about the OIC is one click away. -- Avi 18:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
          • It does matter a great deal and that is why I am saying it at this AFD page instead of article talk page. When we say two things FACT-1 OIC has all Muslim majorty countries and FACT-2 same OIC recognize Al-Aqsa mosque as third holiest site. Then why this article should remain kept? To annoy all the Muslims or to achieve some other hidden objectives. If you do not want to change it back I will request someone else. I believe there are still neutral persons in wikipedia and someone can do that edit for me. --- ALM 18:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC
            • Unfortunately in your case, wikipedia is not a vehicle for disseminating the opinions of the OIC. The OIC carries significant weight, which is why it is the only organization mentioned in the lead of the article, but as there are plenty of reliably sourced and verified statements that there are valid alternatives, to delete it because you do not like it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Similarly, adding extra sentences in the lead to (not-so-subtly) try to push one POV over another would also be a violation of NPOV. The OIC is given the weight it deserves by being in the lead. Our job here is not to appease the worlds Jews, Muslims, Christians, or animists; but to create a fair, impartial encyclopedia that bring suitably notable, reliable, and verifiable sources as devoid as possible from the specter of editor bias, and let the reader decide, and not decide for them. Threatening to violate wikipedia policy by using another editor is not an appropriate step in the dispute resolution process. Thank you -- Avi 18:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
              • I have been here since a year and never get banned or even treated like that. But I meet you in last week and you have [threaten me to ban already for nothing and now doing it again. WP:3RR gives me right to ask other editors view about a revert. Which I just have done in above post and I have not post any request in some user talk page. I know WP better than you and you do not have to tell me to read something. I hope your wish to ban me will be soon fulfull so that you could sleep at night. You go and read WP:3RR, WP:NOT, WP:NPA, WP:CITE ... yourself. --- ALM 18:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Chill out, ALM. You seem not to understand wikipedia as well as you claim. 3RR warnings are given to people to prevent them from violating WP:3RR. You do not have to be a sysop to give the warning, that is what WP:AN3 is for. There was no threat anywhere about banning, unless you have a guitly conscience, perhaps. Also, doing it again here? Can you point it out to me? I merely said that your threatening to violate wiki rules by enlisting the help of others is not a step in the wikipedia dispute resolution process. I fail to see a threat against you. Also, you should read up a bit about the difference between a ban and a block, you are interchanging the two improperly. But, as I mentioned earlier, I am finding it harder and harder to assume good faith based on your proven track record of misquoting cittations, adding POV's, delivering threats, misunderstanding editors, and lack of civil replies to those who would attempt to talk with you reasonably; but I will continue to try. So, I would suggest that 1) you may wish to study up a bit on wiki policies and guidelines more, as I think it is you who may not have a full understanding of the many policies of wikipedia and how they apply and interrelate, and also the definitions of various terms such as ban, block, 3RR, NPOV, RS, CITE, CIVIL, NPA, etc. Secondly, I think you should relax a bit about the block; it's very simple, no sysop should ban anyone unless guidelines and policies were violated, although warnings should be applied for the education of the editor and for tracking for sysop purposes (e.g. new users should not be blocked for WP:3RR without sufficient warning, etc.). Lastly, I think you should once again read about the purpose of wikipedia, and how it is not to push one POV over another, but to provide a fair, impartial encyclopedia that brings suitably notable, reliable, and verifiable sources as free as possible from NPOV. You have much to offer, but please do so in accordance with policy. Thank you. -- Avi 19:59, 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^Talk 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 ^talk 08:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- BhaiSaab ^talk 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)

Comment : Many Muslim Shia users voted keep. For example User:Striver who seems to have many edits which are anti-Israel (although I assume AGF) voted keep. [1] Amoruso 12:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How it becomes M.A.N.Y. Is one is equal to many in your language. I am going to ask User:Striver to vote here again because he has NOT voted in second AFD. You should give at least two people example to prove your MANY point. --- ALM 19:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm Shi'a. I voted delete. Sa.vakilian is Shi'a. I'm pretty sure he voted delete as well. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you BhaiSaab for your support. These people claim that they are fighting to keep that article for Shias. --- ALM 19:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I don't keep racial profiling tags like you. For me a wikipedia user is a wikipedia user. I happened to notice Striver was Shia and voted keep - he has anti israeli edits and rv's. This makes your claim false. One is enough to show how bad faith and wrong your claim was. You owe a lot of people apologies too. Cheers. Amoruso 19:54, 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.(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 ^dialectics 10:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Avi who has done a fabulous job improving the article. There has been no pre-zionist invaision scholastic, peer-reviewed literature written by theologians produced stating that Al-Aqsa Mosque is third, so why should it be needed for all the other sites? Chesdovi 11:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: There are plenty, but you wont find them if you don't want to. thestick 11:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• I can't read Arabic, you find them! Chesdovi 11:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Actually I'm going to have a surf around now and see what I come up with. Chesdovi 11:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That's not what I was proposing. In any case, there is no WP policy mandating "pre-Zionist invasion" resources for Islamic theological questions, if good faith is assumed.--Amerique ^dialectics 11:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and then redirect to Al-Aqsa mosque. Obviously al-aqsa is the third holiest site in Islam, and there is absolutely no need for separate article. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 11:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per previous discussions. It's getting ridicilous. Please close this nomination. Amoruso 12:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It cannot be speedy close at this time because last AFD decision for doing so was changed. See this WP:DRV. --- ALM 12:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to ? In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated. Please ensure that nominations to delete an article which was previously voted "keep", are carefully considered, and are based upon policy. Repeated attempts to have an article deleted for non-policy reasons may sometimes be considered abuse of process and/or disruptive, and the article may be speedy kept. This is the same article, you can talk about renaming it in the discussion page but shouldn't list it all the time. Amoruso 12:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not really a third AFD but previous AFD which was speedy keep after TWO days of discussions is overturned. Why it is difficult to understand even with the URL I mentioned above? I have not renominated it but an admin had renominated it because of a thing called deltion-review. --- ALM 14:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep and protect from deletion. Why have an AfD for this article every week? That's not often enough. Let's have one every day.--Mantanmoreland 12:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Do you have any comments about the article? thestick 17:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and learn how to settle disputes outside of AfD Frankly this looks like a creative way of edit warring without actually edit warring... A lot of work has apparently gone in to this article and even more on sending it here every week. Protect the article and force the editors to reach a consensus on the talk page before sending it back here again. MartinDK 14:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Stop complaining about another AfD. The last one was overturned at deletion review. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 14:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Reading through these past AfD's and deletion review makes me think that someone needs to read WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. MartinDK 14:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I've read it. What's your point? I don't even CARE about this topic, I'm just annoyed by people complaining about relisting an overturned AfD. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per POV of title. Merge any encyclopedic and well documented info into the city's article. Edison 17:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, needs content editing but nothing fundamentally needing deletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a sometimes contentious topic, but NPOV can provide good insights by saying what each of the positions on the issue is and who holds them. It would be less neutral if we simply redirected the term. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Even if OIC that consist of ALL the Muslim majorty countries say that Al-Aqsa Mosque is Muslims third holiest sites. Even then you need this article. Even in Quran and Hadith there are so many references about Al-Aqsa Mosque but you do not care? No Shia want to keep this article but all Muslims are voting to delete. It is an Islamic POV and Islamic article but you do not care about wikipedia Muslim views? :( :( --- ALM 18:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • OIC is one group, not an official voice for muslims, and even the pope has dissenters. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
        • That means until all the more than 1.3 billion Muslims say something it is not a majority Muslim view. OIC has all the countries president and head of states. Who could be something more offical than that? --- ALM 19:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Presidents aren't spiritual leaders; they have their own motivations. Even if the UN passes a resolution saying something, that doesn't make it true, it only makes it true that the UN has declared something. The article can say "OIC, an organization composed of such and such, has declared..." instead of saying "whatever OIC says is true" by taking their word as fact. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, --Shamir1 18:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unless we're going to have an article listing everybody who has been called the "stupidest person in the world", everywhere that has been called the "most beautiful place in the world", etc. Just because more than one person has strung the same two words together in a sentence doesn't mean we need a Wikipedia article on it. Good grief. BigDT 18:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • List of films that have been considered the worst ever? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and redirect - as per other users. Editors have obviously scoured the net and found every possible website where unknowns, army officers, tourist guides and secular papers have made a passing reference to some random site as having equal or greater status to Masjid Al-Aqsa in Islam.Wikipidian 18:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that if it going to be retained as a redirect, it just be redirected to Islam, rather than to a particular location. Otherwise, this silly argument is just going to continue. BigDT 19:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, you do have a sensible point and a good compromise. Though the al-aqsa mosque article already has a section on "third holiest site." Wikipidian 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete147.188.128.117 19:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete As a phrase, it has been used, but it isn't notable, and has the added problem of being completely unreliable depending on your brand of Islamic paganism, your historical point (at one point, Mohammed had his followers bowing to Jerusalem instead of Mecca for example), and a host of other factors. Not worth having, and if any articles explicitly claim a location to be "the third holiest site in Islam", that is a factual inaccuracy that needs correcting too. RunedChozo 19:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Seeing the comments above is funny. I particularly love such phrases as pre-zionist invaision, Obviously al-aqsa is the third holiest site in Islam (obviously someone doesn't know his own religion here), Even in Quran and Hadith there are so many references about Al-Aqsa Mosque but you do not care? - Actually, the Koran only refers to "al masjid al-aqsa" (meaning "the farthest sanctuary") once, in relation to a tale of Mohammed traveling to a heavenly sanctuary, Jerusalem is referred to in all its other references as "the nearest", and the Al-Aqsa mosque on the site wasn't built until decades after Mohammed's death, so he couldn't have gone there even if he'd wanted to. But don't let a little thing like historical fact get in the way of your arguments, please. RunedChozo 19:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If there was a way to quantify holiness then this article would simply redirect to the article about that one site, and if you cannot quantify holiness then this subject is inherently POV. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)