Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrines, mosques and graves

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. (15 delete, 3 delete or merge, 7 keep, one move and one merge) Stifle 23:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shrines, mosques and graves

• Delete Unencyclopedic and fork considering there are articles on all three already. Another page created by User:Striver. User:Pepsidrinka had put up a prod tag and as usual, Striver took it out with out any commentary what so ever. [1] Jersey Devil 00:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There is no requirement to comment on a prod removal, and there's no point in bringing it up here. · rodii · 00:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, it is important that the administrator closing this up and fellow Wikipedians know about the prod removal especially so that they understand why I didn't prod it first and to the lengths that this poster goes to prevent his articles from being deleted. I understand you have objections to my moves in the Spinnwebe article but don't let it trancend into afd's that have nothing to do with that. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 22:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Um, what? What does Spinnwebe have to do with this? · rodii · 01:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Stating that it was Prod'ed and contested is one thing, claiming that Striver as usual contested it without commentary is an uncalled for attack on Striver. Georgewilliamherbert 00:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge... somewhere. · rodii · 00:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Reaffirming my delete vote, post-update. This has gone from an unencyclopedic stub to a POV mess, and still not encyclopedic IMO. · rodii · 22:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge if the article is not improved/expanded. Arbusto 01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge per others voting this option. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an unnecessary fork. If looking for somewhere to merge, perhaps Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations would be a good place, which has subpages Historic background of the Sunni-Shi'a split and Early historical view differences between Shia and Sunni that have been suggested to be merged into that main article. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Bucketsofg 04:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Moe Aboulkheir 04:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 04:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Article doesn't justify its own existence. dbtfz^talk 04:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Undecided. After updates as of this post, I no longer feel this is an easy call. The article has substance (although with atrocious spelling), but I can't tell how meaningful it is with a quick read. It looks like it may be either pushing a POV or at least inciting controversy, but if its sources check out, it may be a reasonable article with some cleanup. However, if it does survive AfD, it definitely should be moved to a more informative title. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 06:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 17:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Most people did vote delete, since there was nothing to vote keep on. That is changed now, the article is expanded greatly [2]. I suspect it has some pov sentances here and there, and some grammar errors, so i request help with that. As is now, the article can stand on its own merits, in my view. --Striver 18:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comments, Striver frequently does this on afd's to try and stop his articles from being deleted. He says "I updated the article" to try and invalidate delete votes already cast and then usually sends messages in talk pages of his allies to get keep votes. I am getting real tired of it and an admin should know that before closing up this afd. Either way, the additions of which are alot of original research don't make the page any less of a fork.--Jersey Devil 20:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding to the content of wikipedia is a honorable thing to do, invinting people to vote is a wikipedia guildline, accusing me of adding original research wihtout even bothering to read the references is, well you know. --Striver 21:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. While adding to the content of WP is honorable, this article isn't salvageable. It is a POV fork. If it actually survives AfD, it should be moved to some more informative location (such as as Salafist destruction of shrines mosques and graves (this is also a horrible name, but it fits a horrible article & is descriptive). --Karnesky 22:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Why do you regard it as unsalvagable and at the same time acknowledge that it is a topic meriting a distince name`? As you see when reading the article i just expanded, the practice is real, sourced, notable and actualy raises quite heated debates, that is if you read the references i provided. --Striver 22:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 22:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if this is a fork, just tell me where the info should go, ill merge it there and change my vote to delete. --Striver 22:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment there is already a Wikipedia article called Ziyarat, which covers Islamic pilgrimages other than the Hajj, and this article mentions Wahabi/Salafist persecution. Any real info could go there. Striver could put his energies into making a list of shrines that attract ziyarat and creating articles for each shrine, with pictures. Westerners know about the Hajj, but don't understand ziyarat. Info and pictures of the beauties of the shrines would help. Zora 23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Not sure why current article justifies deletion. What is it allegedly a fork of? Georgewilliamherbert 00:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep Move it to something like "Conflict between the Salafis and Traditional Muslims", so as not to confuse it with being a fork.--ikiroid | (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 01:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Ziyarat. Pepsidrinka 20:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with Rename. The challenge of following an AfD vote on a page that keeps changing notwith standing, this page seems to have material that needs to be kept. The topic matter will almost inevitably suffer from POV, and I'd like to encourage Striver to work with others to help make this material more encyclopaedic and less POV. The title clearly needs changing - there are several valuable offerings here already - but otherwise the topic seems to deserve a page. JGF Wilks 11:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Suggestion of Zora sounds reasonable. Pavel Vozenilek 22:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the significance of Shrines, mosques and graves is crucial to many Muslim practices. While Ziyarat is also an important practice to visit those places, Ziyarat will be a huge article by itself. I would say the article is a good stub that needs lots of work and it might end up being a huge article. I even started something similar to this in the Arabic wikipedia under categories. I was even planning to create something similar to this article myslef. The Peace Worshipper (aka 129.)^{Talk to TPW} 23:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In the talk page for the ziyarat article, MPatel suggested a division into Ziyarat and Ziyaret -- that is, pilgrimage practices and places of pilgrimage. That seems workable to me. No one but no one is going to be looking for an article entitled "Shrines, mosques, and graves". I admit that ziyaret is not an English term and that no one will be looking for it either BUT ... it's unambiguous and we can direct people to it from Islam, Hajj, mosque, pilgrimage, shrine, mausoleum, and other articles. Zora 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, i see, and we cant do that for the present name? I get it. (not that i endorse the present name)--Striver 01:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Because we aren't interested in mosques and graves per se -- there are millions of mosques and graves that aren't places of pilgrimage. We are interested in the mosques and graves that are pilgrimage centers. There is no word for this in English, but there is in ... Persian? Arabic? Anyway, ziyaret is a good word to import into English as meaning "Muslim pilgrimage center not the Kaaba or the Medina mosque". I would be willing to give it up if someone could come up with a better phrase, however. Zora 01:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep and rename. Saudi-financed destruction of non-Wahabi mosques and other sites within and outside the kingdom (such as in Kosovo and Bosnia) is a real, and severely underreported phenomenon, and definitely needs an article. It could be better sourced and documented, but the issue is important. ProhibitOnions 21:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Instead of putting that all in an article about shrines and pilgrimages, how about starting an article called Wahabism and historical preservation? That sets aside the religious aspects and brings in the views of many non-Muslims who appreciate the historical heritage of Islamic art and culture. Zora 23:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rename - My only complaint is with the title of the article, something like the "Conflict..." title someone mentioned above. Other than that I don't see a problem. -Oscar Arias 16:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Move - issue seems siginificant enough and well documented. Needs a better title. -- infinity0 20:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per all above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.