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)
                  • I have learned a thing from you that is to abuse other person but keep using smily. I will adopt it. Hence dear Avi you said that I have track record of misquoting cittations. Please prove of it first? Then I will ask for other serious allegations you have put against me one-by-one. I am very near to report you personal attacks against me which you are launching against me since a while now (see WP:NPA). Dear friend Avi cool down . Either prove each and everything you have said or I see what I can do with your above post. --- ALM 20:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • I don't know who said it, but please stop assuming why i vote as i do, stop puting me in stupid categories like "he is Muslim! HE ISS BNOOB! He is SHi*A1!!! HE HATES JOOOOOS, HE IS THE MASTERMIND OF THE MUSLIM GUILD!!!!". I have had enough of such comments on the latest month! I have no idea what the third holiest site in Islam is or is not, i voted keep since i liked the article, THATS IT! --Striver 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • • Dear User:Striver It was not me but the creater of this article :(. It was [1], and [2] . --- ALM 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
                          • I think i just projected some of my frustration on some users that maybe did not deserve all of it. in that case, sorry. In either way, i am not very interested in finding out who said what, as long as i am kept out of it in the future. Peace, everyone. --Striver 20:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

(Outdenting) Misquotes. -- Avi 20:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That was not me. --- ALM 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, I owe you an apology. -- Avi 23:45, 18 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 had 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. [3] 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)

Well, I don't know what I am. Being raised as a shia. Kind of Shia. I don't care. I don't like these words. And yes, I voted for delete because this article violates WP:POINT. Show me another encyclopedia which has such entry. I've explained in more details below. --Aminz 11:18, 18 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)
• Comment it isn't obvious if al Aqsa Mosque has a section called "Third holiest site", Tewfik^Talk 21:03, 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)

if you didn't nominate it what possessed you to falsely claim that it can't be speedily kept ? It should be speedily kept because it was agreed from day one that there's no consensus on the subject and nominating the article for deletion every 2 seconds is very disruptive. Amoruso 20:02, 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)
• Comment we do not delete articles due to problems with their titles, Tewfik^Talk 21:03, 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)
    • A bad decision doesn't preclude the correct decision being reached another time. There are no binding precedents on Wikipedia. I didn't see that AFD ... if I had, I certainly would have supported deletion. In a similar one, I did support deletion. BigDT 22:06, 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)

Anon votes are struck out. Suspect sockpuppet. Amoruso 22:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a vote and it isn't RFA - anons are permitted to participate, though it would be helpful if he/she would give a reason for deletion, rather than just a statement. BigDT 02:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BigDT. Anon IP users are welcome to express their opinion here. Please do not strike out the comments of other users, whether they are IPs or not. The closing admin will judge the merit of the arguments presented based on the application of logic, not the origins of the opinion. Thanks, Gwernol 13:24, 18 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)

This is actually a reason to KEEP. You can add this information at the intro of the article. This info exists on the al aqsa mosque article , jerusalem article and others. Amoruso 20:06, 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)
• Keep, since i like the article. Not because i am the overlord of some random Cabal, not since i hate Jooos and not since i am Shi'a. Does it notice that i do not appreciate being attributed with random imaginary motives? Good. --Striver 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

(Note to ALM to drop his crusade after this insightful edit). Amoruso 21:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment, for the last time -- Jews have cabals, Muslims have jihads, Christians have crusades. Keep it straight people! -- Kendrick7^talk 22:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (the previous signed comment should be taken cum grano salis)

• Rename to List of major Islamic holy sites. To me, there seems to be two seperate articles here trying to be born. The first article, which probably doesn't deserve to exist, is about the expression 'third holiest site' and its use and abuse, a bit like the expression 8th wonder of the world, which does not seem to have a page. The second article is the list of sites, with just one line of information about each site, and maybe a picture for some of the most important sites. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not to merge in Ziyarat an already exiting article. --- ALM 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, good idea. Will continue on talk page. Ben Aveling 22:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep since this is neutral and encyclopaedic. The argument that it should be deleted because the al Aqsa Mosque is obviously the third holiest site is one that totally ignores the idea of Wikipedia having a neutral point of view. The idea that this will be brought to AfD instead of working out issues on Talk strikes me as absurd and disruptive of process (per MartinDK). Tewfik^Talk 21:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Why not? No policy violations are apparent, and the my-mosque-is-holier-than-thine content arguments strike me as slightly silly. Needs a better title, though, or maybe a merge to another article on Islamic holy sites. Sandstein 21:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Your arguments are right. I also want to merge it to Ziyarat article. But saying Keep you help them to keep "My mosque is holier than yours" POV. Please reconsider your Keep as it will not give results mentioned in your above post. --- ALM 21:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh Boy (sigh). Amoruso 21:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • Merging to Ziyarat looks good. But merging and POV removal are content issues and do not require deletion. They can be discussed later on the article talk page. There's no reason to reconsider my advice to keep this article. Sandstein 21:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. I guess the idea here is to keep nominating this article for deletion until it finally gets deleted without engaging in dialog or compromising with people who hold different views. I can't go along with that. Sorry. Elizmr 21:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No body renominated it. It is a continuation of 2nd AFD which was stopped after two days. It is relisted by a neutral admin and not be me or someother Muslim. --- ALM 21:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a neutral and informative article. Isarig 21:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Amerique and thestick. ITAQALLAH 23:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Rightly or wrongly, controversial or not, the term is often used in the American media to describe the Al-Aqsa Mosque. If this assignation is not controversial, the phrase should a redirect to that Mosque -- it seems to be controversial, though, and thus the a full article is warranted. The reason that "first holiest" and "second holiest" do not merit full article is that those phrases are not commonplace in the media (at least AFAIK, if they are elsewhere, then we should have articles for them.) Mecca and Medina are the subject of less Western media coverage than Jerusalem, given the media's obsession with conflict. Xoloz 02:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.Opiner 06:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, there is no question that anyone who is expert on Islamic subjects will find this article confusing. For every article, there should be some information that is conceived and passed. Based on my experience working on this article, and based on other comments made by other editors, I can give the following comments:

1- Some editors think that the message from this article, and they edit with this assumption in mind, that Mecca and Medina are not disputed, and that their place in Islam is not disputed. Well, I would like to see from them a proof that Mecca and Medina are not disputed particularly given that several of the citations included in this article here mentions Jerusalem as the second holiest for example. These editors who believe in this message are hunting for any mere mention of the word Third in Islam just to include it in this list of sites shown in this article. If the article is written to de-rank Jerusalem from its status in the religion of Islam like here, [4] and here [5] and this [6] then this is called bad faith editing if indeed this is what is intended by these users. Certainly, If one is to exclude the scripture, Quran and Hadith, which is the reason this site is third Holiest for Muslims, then one may argue not only the status in Jerusalem, but also whether Mecca is the first holiest or whether Medina is the second holiest, and so forth. I believe that these issues should not be exposed to erroneous materials found on the web or misinterpreted by some writers. Instead people look for an Enclopedia to tell them the truth about something and not confuse them more. This is a topic that should be treated with more respect. Having what qualifies for WikiPedia as resources on the internet here and there is not enough for this Article to claim precedence on this issue. Finally, some one added that a city in Tunis was the third holiest sometime in the past [7]. Well, let me tell you that this is wrong again, and that the two references brought here are copy paste of each other, therefore passing the same mistake. To correct you, Kairouan was a notable Islamic city at the time with one of the oldest universities built in the Islamic history. The same can be said in regard to al-Azhar in Egypt. These mosques were the main destination of scholars for them being centers of science and knowledge at the time. Actually al-Azhar continues to be so even today. However, saying that they are the third holiest is again a mistake which only shows the confusion by some who are not familiar with Islam or with its correct terminologies.

2- Another message that might be conveyed through this article is whether the term Third Holiest is political or religious. This is of course a point raised by anti-Islamic editors like Daniel Pipes and Joseph Farah. Those editors, not only question the Holiness of this site to Muslims, they also question whether if this site was at all the one intended to be in the Quran. They also questioned whether there is anything holy for Muslims in Jerusalem. And finally, they questioned whether ‘Palestinians” ever existed at all. Some say what about Islam's holy sites? There are none in Jerusalem. See this [8] and [9] [10]. See these for denial pipes [11]. Well, of course these editors never discuss if the Holy of Holies term used by Jews to refer to the same site is also political or religious, particularly that the oldest continuously existing Jewish community of Palestine refer to a place in Nablus as the Temple that is the one meant to be in the Bible and Torah [12]. I do not see a discussion on whether the Holy of Holies is a political or religious one. I do not see an article therefore written to discuss the Disputes regarding the Holy of Holies. Also, I do not see any written articles to discuss First Holiest and Second Holiest in Islam.

I think that the second point or the second message is a valid one, and may easily go to the Aqsa mosque article. Of course, this should be done by deleting all the other sites mentioned in that section because most of them are based on erroneous reporting or wrongly perceived reporting.

Finally, it is wrong to conclude based on the material in this article that since the Ummayid Mosque is the third holiest by Syrians and since the Eyup Mosque is third holiest that this is the case for Sunnis given that Turkey and Syria are mostly so. The same can be said regarding the other sites attributed mainly to the Shiites. I see that this article is basically surviving by a material that at best can be described as erroneous and inaccurate reporting by some Journalists or visitors. This NOISE is only amplified by this WikiPedia article, and it is basically adding more confusion.

Finally a remark by many Iranian newspapers confirming the confirmed: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

I appologise of course if some of these links included hateful language and were offending. The point here is that the official stand in Iran is that Jerusalem is the third Holiest.

• All of these site can be discounted as they are all politically motivated, none are talking about the subject of Jerusalem itself. Chesdovi 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note that most citations in the article are messed up and contradict each other which proves they are mostly erroneous reproting by non experts on the issue.

Oh by the way, the sites of the Mosque of Mecca and the one in Jerusalem were chosen and used so before birth of the prophet Muhammad. This is clear from ^{[Quran 22:26]}||}} and from Template:Muslim. I am saying this because I noticed those not familiar with the Islam do not understand this fundamental issue. It is only the Mosque in Medina which was estaablished by the Prophet Muhammad out of these three sites. This is really a reason why such things like Holiness are not going to be sufficiently addressed with out referencing Muslim authorities or scholars on the issue.

• This article isn't about the third holiest site according to Muslim autorities and scholars, but on what other people beleive to be the holiest? Chesdovi 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 05:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Al-Aqsa. There is no such entry in other scientific encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia of Islam, etc etc. We are giving undue weight to the question of "What is the third holiest shrine?". One can ask why such question is so important? Why other answers are important? Aminz 11:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is obviously a controversial topic, but its very controversial character is of cultural and historical significance. I hope the article will be kept and spawn an instructive edit war, fought on the basis of appropriately sourced information and scholarly arguments. I also hope to see soon on Wikipedia articles on other controversial topics such as Moses the Egyptian (see e.g. Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism by Jan Assmann) Stammer 11:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete the point is not just that the article is controversial but that fact that it pushes a clear POV that attempts to devalue the position of Al-Quds-Jerusalem in Islam. This issue of Third Holist Site had reached a consensus amongst the vast majority of Muslims a long time ago. I think the article dose nothing to further wikipedia’s NPOV policy and clearly misuses WP:V. –Palestine48 10:29, 18 November 2006

• Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AbuIbrahim (talk • contribs) .
• Delete per aminz - this will always have problems as it all depends on who says what rather than facts Localzuk^(talk) 14:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Amerique [23], User:Aminz [24] [25], User:BhaiSaab [26] [27] and per Wikipedia is not a soapbox. (→Netscott) 20:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Merge/Split to other articles. There are some nice pics here. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • All the pictures are taken from other already existing articles. Hence by deleting it we will not lost a single picture. --- ALM 12:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Expand into Holy sites of Islam. Alternatively keep. Plain deleting seems out of place. The expression is very correct in my understanding (and Islam is by definition not "Pagan", as someone posted over there, but a Judaism-derived religion like Christianity, I protest as Pagan myself) but the entry seems to have little merit by itself. It does not seem an ecyclopedic entry and its content should be in other articles (but I think the same of all those articles about videogames' or TV series' characters, you know). I think that Muslims' opinions should be considered primarily (as long as they are consistent) when making the decision, as other people may have some vested interest in negating the Muslim holiness of Jerusalem, which is beyond doubt. --Sugaar 23:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Check out [28] and Ziyarat, already done. thestick 03:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Ziyarat may serve for merge but list of holy cities is too generalistic. If merged to Ziyarat Holy sites of Islam should redirect there. But, in my heathen opinion, I think that Ziyarat refers to a group of Islamic holy sites associated with Mohammed, being surely others, specially in Shia context. Keeping and reverting move to Third holiest site of Islam is a serious possibility too. In any case, the article is good and should not be deleted. --Sugaar 06:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: As per my comments on the last two AfD attempts. 10% of Islam is not an insignificant group of people, let's not discount their views. This is important encyclopædic information that needs to be kept. By the way, we really should change the name of the article back to Third holiest site in Islam as everything that it has been changed to smacks of POV. Valley2city 02:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment : Shia Muslims views aren't being discounted, firstly All Shia's don't believe the same and, check out the other comments if you're interested. thestick 03:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Almost all of the Shia wikipedian are saying to delete the article (see comments above). However, if you cannot see this then ... --- ALM 18:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Merge into List of holy cities#Islam and delete. (And we DO delete articles because the titles are WP:NPOV, if the GFDL would require the name be kept in any history.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - if we're going to delete this, then what do you say about articles such as Greatest chess player of all time? - Richardcavell 00:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment- The chess books might discuss this(even probably in detail) but other scientific encyclopedias don't have an article on the third shrine. At least I haven't seen. --Aminz 00:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment, I would say that such a comparison is a false analogy. Chess players' abilities are indeed quantifiable (ie: how many games won, how many errors made, etc., etc.) however how does one quantify "holiness"? (→Netscott) 00:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Scott, in that case, are you willing to remove the "holiness" quantifier from all Mosques, shrines, Temple mounts, Western Walls, Churches, Cathedrals, Sepulchers, etc. in wikipedia? Granted that is reductio ad absurdum, and I'll agree that holiness may not be quantifiable in terms of photons or grams, but I think that there does exist a hierarchy in all religions, and there is a significant debate about what comes after Mecca and Medina in Islam. -- Avi 01:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Avi, please show me an article of a debate. That's what I am looking for. If an academic has published something about such a *debate*, then I'll take back my argument. I feel it is we who are making it a debate. --Aminz 01:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Sayed Mohammad Mahdi Al-Husseini Almodarresi has unequivocably called the Imam Ali shrine the third holiest site in Islam. I believe he is considered a respected academic among Shia Muslims. -- Avi 01:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't see any "debate" there... Based upon what you are talking about Avraham we can conclude that this article is nothing more than original research in that the article itself is framing a debate. Now you and I both know that is totally against Wikipedia's policies. I'd be curious to see if you in fact could produce a preferrably scholarly theologian link or links that specifically expound upon the idea that this is some sort of a "debate" about the "third holiest". (→Netscott) 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, Avi, I mainly meant western academic sources :) But I had a look at the link. It is not a *debate*: one that in which one scholar argues that for this and this reason X is the third holiest shrine and the other one contends... To shias, in practice the third holiest shrine is indeed Karbala; if you ask a shia where do you want to go: aqsa or karbala, I won't be surprised if he says karbala. But to be honest with you, I don't understand what is going on here. Honestly I don't understand why it matters to know which shrine is the third one. I have done some research on Islam and this question was by no means something important to be answered in academic papers. I feel there is something more to this and that academics are not concerned with that something. This is to the best of my knowledge, tomorrow it may turn out to be such a hot dispute... but then I'll ask what is it supposed to mean that "the third holiest shrine is X or Y". --Aminz 02:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This started in the Al Aqsa Mosque - Ithink someone wrote a section in response to claims made there that AL Aqsa Mosque is the third holiest and he said that this view is not universal - it was them moved to a differnet article after claims this was undue weight on the al aqsa mosque article - so I don't see what the problem. If it's not for shia like you say it might not be and then Jerusalem too isn't 3rd holiest like claimed on other articles but it's rather KARBALA, then you can see why it's interesting to know and write about. Cheers. Amoruso 03:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I said it is true *in practice*, by which I mean the attention Shia have. I have no idea what it is in theory. It might be the case, I dunno. Again, it is not an important question. Like which shirt do I like the third? It doesn't matter really. --Aminz 04:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter really what the effects are of cryptonite I presume but it has articles. Again, if this didn't come up in reference to Al Aqsa - if it's simply not true - then it wouldn't come up... we can delete all references to third holy site/city in wikipedia and then censor this infomarion but as it is the articles are misleading. Amoruso 18:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • Well, the more research I do does imply to me as well that the academic portion is rather weak, at least in English. There does exist some academic debate as can be seen here (in the Abstract) : http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1156138 and the same paper from springer w/o the abstract: http://www.springerlink.com/content/hf8f8j23lm1lx8lc/ for which one has to pay $30, which if I could post it may be worth it, but I couldn't due to copyright. This is a possibility, but I would request help from someone with a JSTOR account for verification, withouty which it is unusable: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0041-977X%281989%2952%3A2%3C215%3AQ2AJ%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2&size=LARGE . This article would be fascinating reading in and of itself: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0732-2992%281989%296%3C12%3ATMOTUD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X&size=LARGE The following would not beacceptable on its own, as the author is a student and not an expert, but its bibliography proves interesting: http://www.northwestcollege.edu/id/wilsonr/2003Capstone/JakeMASSINE.pdf Overall, I'll have to agree that the academic support for this debate in English (at least for free) is weaker than I thought. Then again, I'd expect most of this in Arabic, but this is English wikipedia. I'll have to look around more and rethink. -- Avi 02:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Avi, please let me know which Journal you would like to read, and I can send you by email. I have access to most of these. I have the paper [29] in hand as well as the one of Nasser Rabat. What do you want to verify? Is there a way I can upload these to Wiki so that others see those papers. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 03:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Avi, please reply to Almaqdisi so that you can change your mind if possible before the closing of this AFD. --- ALM 13:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Arthur. The whole creation of this article reminds me of something equally problematic. ;-) Khoikhoi 22:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article cannot be maintained in a NPOV state. The reason for that is the fact that the article was created to settle scores in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The fact that you could in principle have a bona fide article on this subject doesn't mean that we should keep this article. Similarly, if Neo-Nazis were to create an article about genocides with the intent of diminishing the Jewish Holocaust, you would have little chance that the usual wiki procedures would be effective in producing a NPOV article on that subject.Count Iblis 02:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Yes, but that indicates an inadequacy of the Wikipedia model that should be addressed (or at least acknowledged) rather than waved away. An article about the Canaanite Genocide would certainly be endlessly controversial. That would not make its subject matter historically or culturally irrelevant. Stammer 06:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Comment' There is certainly a need for new wiki policies to deal with this. But until such policies are developed, we should use the existing wiki procedures to improve articles and delete those articles that wikipedia cannot handle. We can handle genuine POV disputes that are about the content of the article itself. That is no reason to delete an article. What we cannot deal with are are articles that are created as "weapons" to fight a conflict. The edit wars that you then see are not driven by a genuine difference of opinion on the subject matter itself and therefore cannot be resolved (at least not before the underlying conflict is resolved, in this case the Israeli-Palestinian conflict).

Should we tolerate articles on wikipedia that are in a permanent "State of War"? My opinion is that we should not tolerate such articles, because they damage the reputation of wikipedia. We shpould, of course, give the article the benefit of the doubt when we first suspect this problem. But after a while we should say: Enough is Enough.Count Iblis 14:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I have changed my mind to delete, after having actually read the article. The article gives an undue weight to random non-scholarly things. It would be comparable to having Bush is a fuckup (expresion). You will find some sources for it, and maybe even some semi-important person, but as a whole, you wont find real high level scholars maintain such a view/expresion. For example, it uses one unsourced/unrated hadith from a non-Muslim scholar and some random quote from some guy in television and some random websites, and then proclaims proudly that "With an estimated 130 to 200 million followers worldwide, this accounts for approximately 15% of all Muslims.[15] It is estimated that only Mecca and Medina receive more Muslim pilgrims.. Im sorry, but at the very best, this is missleading, my father who is well read confirmed to me that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is the third post holy site among Shi'as, and i go by that over some random guy, random website and random scholar any day. Maybe if the article would be renamed to Ignorant claims about the third holiest site in Islam i would vote keep, but than we would have a notability issue. So, delete the article. If it gets delete, i truly feel sorry for the well intended guy who spent so many hours creating it, may it can be userfied? --Striver 13:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Very good comments! I hope closing admin will read them. Thank you. -- ALM 13:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Very good comments? Hmmm… “you wont find real high level scholars maintain such a view/expression” and he goes on to say his father “confirmed to me that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is the third most holy site” … so the expression is used! His father may not be a high level scholar but it’s good enough for him! This is not about high level scholars, but about what the world at large refers to as Islam third holiest site. Maybe your father disagrees, obviously a good enough reason for you delete the page. I’m just sorry that the only other expression you could come up with contains foul language. You state “undue weight to random non-scholarly things.” Well wikipedia provides for such pages, as it was considered Undue weight on the Al Aqsa Mosque page where this info was originally posted and was therefore moved in accordance with W:NPOV where pages can be made to express minority held views. Chesdovi 14:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • • • Minority views can be expressed in separate articles, but Wikipedia must still present them in an NPOV fashion, point out that these views are not the majority view. --BostonMA ^talk 02:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
        • "so the expression is used", yes, just as most holiest site in Islam (expression) and second most holiest site in Islam (expression). Why don't we have article on them? "This is not about high level scholars, but about what the world at large refers to as Islam third holiest site.", ok then name it to Misconceptions regarding the third holiest site in Islam and i will vote Keep, just as we have Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS. "I’m just sorry that the only other expression you could come up with contains foul language." most secure place in the world (expresion) [30], were is that article? "where pages can be made to express minority held views". That is the best argument so far. However, i have not been convinced that a notable minority view holds such a belief. As i have explained, you can take any expression and Google information regarding such a thing "Best president"? "best car"? The key is scholarly, you find a prominent scholar, knowing that he is talking about, that X is the third most sacred, and not the consensus one, then you have notability. Random non-notables and semi-notables talking over their head does not mean anything - im sorry. --Striver 01:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • Please explain to me on what basis your father believes it’s the third holiest. Is it based on that random verse in the Koran or other random Hadiths? Wikipedia is not only for including the majority held view but also other views. There is no compelling reason to subdue the contents of this article. Where do you think journalists and news websites get their information from? Maybe the attacks they report on are also unreliable? They usually glean information from the area of the attack interviewing the “natives” who will provide them with the details for their report, and if they say the site is third holiest, why should you dispute their beliefs? People have a right to know that the third holiest site in Islam is contested. With 1.6 billon Muslims, I’m sure there must be some dissention in this regard. Chesdovi 14:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • • • He holds the view, referring to consensus. He is not aware of any controversy related to the term "3rd most sacred", he views that there is a consensus on this issue. "Maybe the attacks they report on are also unreliable?" Yes, even they are humans. And even humans are humans, maybe they interviewed some ignorant kid, or maybe his translator screwed up and was talking out of his hat? Maybe they want to boost the coolness of their tourist resort? Who cares, none of them were scholars, we are not talking about news and eyewitness credibility, rather on the "sacredness" of something according to Islam. You think you will be born with that knowledge, or empirically observe the "sacredness" with your own eyes in all three sites and conclude that "Oh yes yes, i now see clearly that X is most sacred"? This is a scholarly issue, not a "i'll ask some eyewitness about it" issue. With 1.6 billon Muslims, you will find enough ignorants to make any non-scholarly view as "relevant", you will even find ignorant Muslims that say they are not sure about the existence of God. Are we going to create Muslim who do not belive in God? --Striver 02:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • So every self-identified Shi'a (or Shi'a related) editor in this discussion is now calling for the deletion of this article? The reasoning that Shi'a supposedly held another view about what site was the "third holiest" as justification to not delete this article appears to be getting weaker and weaker. (→Netscott) 14:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        • This is the typical method. You put aside the disputes amongst yourselves in order to unite against the common issue of Jerusalem and Israel. It is playing out here just like an instruction booklet. It is a well known fact that Shia veneration for sites in Iraq surpasses that of Al Aqsa and no huddling together for deletion of this page, which seems to be seen by all Muslim users here as anti-Islamic issue, will change that fact. Chesdovi 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
          • • • Yes, this is about the jooooos, i love to f*ck it up for the joooos. C'mon, stop that, i did not mention the Arab-Israel conflict when i consulted my father on the issue, and neither did he mention it when he answered. He stated that Muslim prayed at that direction in the begging, and then somethings about Karbalam but nothing about Israel, and certainly nothing about Jewish people or religion. And just for the record, i have a knowledgable Jewish friend who believes in Judaism, and we get along just fine, even though we stand on different sides in the Arab-Israel conflict. In fact, we enrich each others POV. --Striver 02:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I find it heart-warming that this article has managed to get Sunni and Shia to find common ground at last, maybe this will be the beginning of the end of the daily tit-for-tat killings in Iraq. Well done ALM. Chesdovi 14:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
            • • Im glad you are glad, but i do not view it as "heart-warming that this article has managed to get Sunni and Shia", since i see no unity issue here, just a voting on the notability of an article. I go with the truth, not wiht Shi'a Islam or Sunni Islam or anything. Admitedly, Shi'a Islam does seem the nearest to the truth at the moment, but... what am i rabbling about? --Striver 02:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Dear Chesdovi my friend. This is extremely negative way of thinking. Please change it as it will not benefit anyone including yourself. If I feel something is right then I will fight for it. Even if I have to oppose all Muslim wikipedian and have take side of Jews. But you are not right, here my friend. You are assuming bad faith on group of users. Please do not do that. pleaaase... --- ALM 14:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep: (1) I do not think there is any dispute that there are verifiable and reliable sources establishing that various sites are considered the "third holiest" in Islam; (2) the fact that many editors believe that those sources are wrong is not a ground for deletion. Similarly, even if some of the sources are bad, that is not a grounds for deletion - it's a ground for clean-up. In this case, the article is much much improved from its state during the original AFD -- leave it in place and let the Wikipedia process continue to improve it. TheronJ 14:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Rename to Third Holiest Site in Islam Controvery and Rewrite. This article has gone through several transformations.

• In it's original form, the subject of the article was the third holiest site in Islam. With that as the subject, it should be clear that the consensus of Islamic scholars would determine which site qualified. Giving significant weight to views which are not accepted by Islamic scholars would be giving undue weight and a violation of NPOV.
• The article has been significantly revamped to remove some of the most dubious sources, such as travel sites. In its current form, the article is a POV Fork ostensensibly about an expression. However, the article does not clearly explain the notability of that expression. Instead, it pretends to present, in a pretended neutral fashion, some collection of statements about on an expression, without giving a clear explanation of why the expression is Notable. Without such a clear exposition of the Notability of the phrase, the article qualifies for deletion as failing to properly assert notability. Also without a clear explanation that there exists an overwhelming consensus amongst Muslims regarding the third holiest site in Islam, and a clear explanation that the main proponents of the theory that the third holiest site in Islam is not in Jerusalem, then the article would not be an encyclopedic article about a controversy, but would be re-enacting that controversy in the guise of reporting objective facts. --BostonMA ^talk 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• The notability problem could be remedied. The phrase is in fact notable, because it is central to a controversy. The article could clearly explain the notability of the phrase, if the subject were about the controversy, rather than a pretense at an objective inquiry into which is the third most holy site in Islam. However, to cover the controversy in an encyclopedic fashion, the article would need to identify who are the main protagonists in the controversy. On one side of the controversy is the overwhelming consensus of Islamic scholars. On the other side is predominantly non-Muslims. The editors who have demonstrated Ownership of this article have yet to allow such an encyclopedic treatement of this controversy. In its current incarnation, delete as non-notable. --BostonMA ^talk 14:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • • "Third Holiest Site in Islam Controvery"? What controversy? I see no controversy, is there a "Most secure car" controversy just because many people use the expresion on different cars? Or even better, do we have a Second largest planet controversy? No? Really no? Is it Titania? Or is it Sii? Maybe its Germarc? Sure, most people say saturn, but are we going to delete that article when it gets created? isn't that to suppress a minority view and censor a controversy? --Striver 02:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe we neeed most free country in the world controversy, is it USA? Or maybe Cuba? Hey, its maybe Canada? Hey, maybe its Netherlands, France, Canada, Japan, Germany? Man, this is a really big controversy, dont you think? --Striver 02:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The controversy is this. Joseph Farah wrote an article Myths of the Middle East, appearing in the WorldNetDaily on 11 October 2000, which claimed that Jerusalem is not the third most holy site in Islam, because, according to him:

        "What about Islam's holy sites? There are none in Jerusalem." [31]

      • I don't think there is any significant controversy amongst Muslims regarding the third holiest site in Islam. However, there are non-Muslims who claim that the third holiest site in Islam is not in Jerusalem. I think it is appropriate to report on that fact. However, I think it is inappropriate to conceal the fact that it is non-Muslims who are primarily, and quite vocally, putting forward this claim. It is inappropriate to mix in a lot of non-notable opinions to conceal the fact that there is virtual consensus amongst Muslims regarding the third holiest site. It is inappropriate to conceal the historic record of this consensus. I hope this helps to explain my position. By the way, I am also for delete. --BostonMA ^talk 04:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It seems from the above discussion and previous discussions that while Al-Aqsa is most commonly cited as the third holiest there are enough varying claims such that there is no undue weight issue with discussing them as long as the article makes clear that to the majority of Muslims, Al-Aqsa is considered to have that position. As observed by Theron above, at this point in the discussions there is no dispute that there are verifiable and reliable sources that list locations other than Al-Aqsa and assertions that those are wrong are not relevant. Furthermore, as observed by others above the difficulty to make an NPOV stable article is not a reason for deletion - this applies to all Wikipedia topics that are controversial. The argument that other encyclopedia's don't have articles on the topics at hand also is not an argument for deletion- Wikipedia has and should have many more topics than a paper encyclopedia. I'm also troubled by the religious and ethnic tensions that this discussion has brought up. It is illogical to think that somehow whether Al-Aqsa is the third or the fourth or the oth or the [i]th most holy location changes anything in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in so far as no one would seriously argue against the statement that Al-Aqsa is one of the holiest locations in Islam. We should be able to make an NPOV article on this topic. This article needs careful discussion by a variety of other editors in a calm fashion without attempts to POV push, not deletion. JoshuaZ 15:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep and take appropriate action against those who nominate the same article for deletion for the third time in less than a month. Beit Or 21:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This was not renominated a third time, this is the second AfD being relisted as determined at the DRV, after consensus found the speedy closure to be incorrect. This AfD is not out of order. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and/or Rename. I see this kind of article--especially the form it is in now, where "competing claims", so to speaked are listed. Too many journalists and people with strong opinions will start state things as fact and/or assumption that are not leave folks wondering what the truth is--or worse, with the wrong impression. This kind of article can provide a detailed perspective on an issue like that. And that, IMHO, is what an encyclopedia's job is.--iFaqeer 01:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • • i held that view untill i reallized that the article is just a stich jobb of various "look, my hood is the best!!! You NOOOB!" kind of claim. Nothing really notable or scholarly. I would appreciate to be counterproven in this issue, bring me a notable Islamic scholar that contest Al-Aqsa is #3, and ill change back to keep. Untill then, it is just a collection of a bunch of ignorant and egoistic claims, OR'ed to give the impression of a controversy. --Striver 02:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I mean, c'mon, just look at the candidades, its the burial place of the following Shi'a Imams: Imam 1, Imam 3, 10 or 11, a Shi'a random mosques, random Sunni mosque, random Sunni mosque , another Imam 1 mosque and then Imam 8 mosque. So think about it, are all Shi'a ignorant and can't keep track on if it is Imam 1A, 1B, 3, 8, 10/11 or the other two random mosques that are 3# sacred, or is it just a "I have the cooooolest hoood!" that ignorant reporters could not sift out? --Striver 02:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)