Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 9
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 was delete ~ trialsanderrors 08:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Joel Manning
Shameless vanity / self-promotion. Written by user:Joelmanning. -- RHaworth 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment. The use of the word "vanity" as a reason for deletion is now strongly discouraged per WP:COI#Importance of civility. Please instead use "Conflict of interest". Jpe|ob 00:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. I've already started work wikifying and copyediting this article. Just because an article is vanity/not NPOV doesn't mean it's not a valid article. With some work, this could become a decent article. [Iridescence] talk • contrib 01:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Seems to be an up and coming star, has an IMDb entry and a personal website, comes up top on Google search, and quite possibly recognisable from his movie appearances. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Very Weak Keep -- Fairly obvious self promotion, but person seems to be edging towards notable. As such some claims, such as television appearences, need to be cited. Otherwise Delete -- wtfunkymonkey 01:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
KeepVery weak keep Despite obvious self-promotion, and thanks to major cleanup by Iridescence. He is clearly notable. Still needs an opening sentence ("Joel Manning is an American actor/dancer, blah blah blah..."). Oh, and hand slap user:Joelmanning. Wavy G 02:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per nom. - Akaneon 12:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)- Comment Huh? Wavy G 19:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- User was indef-blocked for trolling and personal attacks. Please disregard. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Subject fails the central requirement of WP:BIO. No evidence of multiple features in national cultural publications. Citing an IMDB listing and a personal website are both of relatively little value under this guideline. I googled several pages deep and found no media mentions in notable publications, and not much that isn't either an automatic listing (IMDB) or Joel Manning-created content. There's no independent fan website. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Darkspots 02:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Wikipedia is not an actor/dancer database, regardless of whether an article is self-promotional in nature. This subject shows no indication of coming close to passing WP:BIO with his various bit parts/extra roles. He is not "clearly notable". Look at his IMDB entry - "Dancer" (in Clerks II and Jackass 2 and others) and "Lovin' Spoonfull #2 Bass Player" and "Zombie #2" etc. are not major roles. The "Mike Nesmith" role is also a bit part or at best a minor speaking role in one episode[1]. So he is liked enough by the producers of American Dreams that they gave him bit part roles on more than one episode. He also got a couple of single episode bit parts (as a background dancer for a single scene in the most recent[2]) on not-well-known sitcoms. This is not encyclopedically notable. Its not notable enough for a magazine. This is not even "up and coming" unless we work for his agent (and besides, no crystal balling on Wikipedia). Allowing articles like this would mean open season on Wikipedia for every struggling/"up and coming" Hollywood actor with a couple of TV bit part credits on their resume Bwithh 02:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I see what you mean; the article is somewhat deceptive. At first glance, he appears to have an impressive body of work. I don't know what the show "American Dreams" is about, but I assumed from reading this that he had some kind of recurring role playing various celebrities (?). And stating that he is in Clerks II and Jackass II doesn't help. I guess I was also assuming more significance on this accident he had (overcoming disability to return to acting, etc.), but upon second glance it appears to just be filler. Changing my vote, unless something more noteworthy can be provided. Wavy G 03:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I looked around a bit and it looks like American Dreams had a gimmick that every episode, or most episodes, they would recreate musical acts that appeared in the 1960s TV music show American Bandstand - these do not seem necessarily to have anything to do with the plotline of the American Dreams episode (maybe some "theme" resonance). In an episode in the third season, a performance by The Monkees on Bandstand is recreated. It looks Joel Manning was part of this performance (with 3 others) as Mike Nesmith. Bwithh 04:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Strong Delete per Bwithh. Just an extra in a couple of movies. 1 google result (IMDB). article is self promotion -- Coasttocoast 03:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I did say "bit part" not just extra roles. ( According to your own blog entry, your most recent sitcom dance role was not a major role. We're unfamiliar with SAG terminology, but this is an encyclopedia, not a SAG database. Okay, let's call your roles "principal roles as defined by SAG", but there's still no encyclopedic notability Bwithh 05:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Bwithh. TJ Spyke 05:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Bwithh and the fact he has never been mentioned in a newspaper indexed by NewsBank. The only mention outside IMDB and Wikipedia I found was on TV.com[3], which like IMDB, indexes everyone who ever steps foot inside a studio. -newkai t-c 05:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep despite the self-promotion, this person is mildly notable. Atlantis Hawk 07:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, Bwithh, et al. Robertissimo 08:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This up and coming actor does not yet meet the notability requirements, as per Bwithh and CoastToCoast --Amists 10:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious self-promotion vanity and not much mention in the internet, unless more sources (must be reliable) are being cited. --Terence Ong (C | R) 10:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete-despite hairsplitting by author on what constitutes an "extra", does not meet WP:BIO and has not played notable roles. Seraphimblade 12:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per lack of coverage, fails WP:BIO. Listing in IMDB alone is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity article. Joel, please see my contribution to your talk page. WMMartin 14:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, per Bwithh, per WP:BIO. Also for slightly smarmy tone regarding our ignorance about SAG. Please list your biography with them. --Shrieking Harpy
Talk|Count 14:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC) - Delete - per WP:BIO. Also, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, there's no reason to have an article on an actor until they have established themselves. We aren't in the business of predicting who will get big (or for that matter of giving free publicity). →Bobby← 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep- seems reasonably notable -Toptomcat 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Folantin 16:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:COI issues aside, he falls short of notability. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - bits parts are not sufficient notability. No reliable sources. -- Whpq 17:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Clearly non notable and fails WP:BIO. Its a puff piece. scope_creep 20:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per nom, per Bwithh and per WP:BIO. Xdenizen 21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:BIO and has WP:COI issues. Reads like a promo. Danny Lilithborne 22:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Bwithh. No way is the kid notable......yet. Ohconfucius 08:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable per Bwithh. Good notability research, congrats. Moreschi 17:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Bwithh's arguments for non-notability. Extras aren't actors.Montco 20:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete -- a mix of self-promotion, sob story and basic facts that belong on imdb. Pete Fenelon 01:44, 13 November 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.
- 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 was No consensus ~ trialsanderrors 01:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was asked to provide a reasoning behind my decision, so here goes: 1. If I count !votes I get roughly 21 dels, 13 keeps, that's a 60% majority for deleting, but really in no man's land between no consensus (ca. 50%) and rough consensus (ca. 67%). 2. The policy on WP:NOT is very much in flux over whether glossaries are exemptions to the Not a dictionary provision. Unless there is consensus to strike the exemption I prefer to stick with the status quo ante (still reflected in Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)), which is that glossaries are acceptable. 3. Most importantly, the content of the article changed significantly in the last days of the debate [13] thanks mostly to edits by User:JJay, and this change was reflected in a number of delete→keep changes and late keep !votes, so the early "delete not sourced" !votes are no longer on solid factual ground. Taking these three factors into account I did not see that consensus for deletion was established. This is a no consensus closure though so it can be renominated anytime. I recommend waiting three to four weeks for the policy debate to be settled and to see if the article improves, and consider renomination then. But of course I might be wrong, and that's what we have WP:DRV for. ~ trialsanderrors 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of Japanese sex terms
- See previous deletion debate for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese sex terms 2005
This list contains Japanese terms for sex, sex organs, sex positions, and so on. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We should not be hosting random lists of foreign words. Although we do have some lists like this, unlike those there's no particular reason to maintain a list of sex terms in various languages, since sex-related articles on English Wikipedia are written in English, and those that are specifically on Japanese sex topics define all the terms they use. Exploding Boy 06:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Erm. Delete, obviously.
- Delete. This article is inherently unverifiable. We have no way of knowing if these definitions are accurate. If anywhere, it belongs on the Japanese Wikipedia. Even then it is not encyclopedic. These are not unique concepts, such as might find in a glossary, they're just definitions of crude words in a foreign language. -Will Beback 08:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you call this inherently unverifiable. why would this be any less verifiable than american sex terms? Derex 10:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I fail to see any merit in this ever-growing list of foreign language sex-slang. It fails what Wiki is not, so I'm suprised it's managed to stay up for so long. At best this article is an unverifiable list of foreign language slang with minimal use as any kind of reference point, and at worse it's just acting as a bulletin board for people to post titillating rude words from Japan. ShizuokaSensei 08:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per ShizuokaSensei, its not what Wikipedia is. James086 Talk | Contribs 14:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. No comprehensible rational for deletion advanced (as far as I can see, all arguments are either a)factually wrong or b)essentially "I don't like it, for no particular reason". WilyD 15:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please be civil. If you would like to explain precisely why the claim that Wikipedia is not a dictionary applies is "factually wrong", someone might be willing to listen to you. Merely asserting that those who oppose you are making "incomprehensible", "irrational", "factually wrong", and unsupported claims is inappropriate. — Haeleth Talk 09:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Uh - this is clearly not a dictionary entry. Thus wikipedia is not a dictionary doesn't apply. There's zero plausible basis for even trying to assert it's a dictionary entry. Clearly it's a stub or start class list - but being a stub is hardly a criterion for deletion. It's hard to aruge that it's not a dictionary entry because there's no argument to be made - a cursory visual inspection reveals it not to be. WilyD 14:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please be civil. If you would like to explain precisely why the claim that Wikipedia is not a dictionary applies is "factually wrong", someone might be willing to listen to you. Merely asserting that those who oppose you are making "incomprehensible", "irrational", "factually wrong", and unsupported claims is inappropriate. — Haeleth Talk 09:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and salt - How on God's green earth can you claim this is encyclopedic??! It does NOT meet WP: NOT. It is NOT VERIFIABLE in that there are no SOURCES. Bishōjo has no sources. Futanari is not sourced. Image club is just totally made up. I would strongly suggest that the people voting keep THINK about what they are voting to keep. There are some terms in the list that are legit, but the majority of list is an unsourced list of mostly unsourced terms that , if they belong ANYWHERE, belong on the Japanese Wikipedia. Please also look up in the dictionary the definition of encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not toilet paper. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 15:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I said it's encyclopaedic because it is. I said it's verifiable because it is. This seems like a fairly straightforward proposition - I'm not sure how you missed it. WilyD 18:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Really, folks, you gotta love inclusionists. Alright , let's examine:
-
-
- If you are using the definition of encyclopedic as "an alphabetical organization of fields of knowledge" then you are being pedantic. It is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, no matter how much it tries to fit a dictionary definition of encyclopedic. It is not a collection of verifiable facts. If you are saying that it is, then I respectfully think you are wrong and agree to disagree.
- If you are suggesting that articles, without sources, that are little more than stubs, that have existed in the same state for months, are verifiable, do you mean theoretically? Because, theoretically, anything is verifiable to some people. But it is not verifiable in terms of WP:V for a very large majority of terms on that list. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 18:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Okay, apart from being demonstratably not an inclusionist (I've compared my AfD votes and it's pretty clear I'm a "centrist" on the issue - my keep arguments for articles that are deleted are a percentage of my keep arguments that equal to the percentage of my delete arguments where the article is kept) I'll show what the problem is when you vote to delete an article without first reading it.
- If an article is appropriate for an encyclopaedia, but not for "the spirit of an encyclopaedia" then voting to delete it clearly fails WP:NPOV. Rather than make value judgements about whether I particularly like a topic or not, I apply Wikipedia, she ain't paper and ask merely "Is it encyclopaedic?" - here even you admit the answer is yes, so I'll move on.
- I'll ask is it sourced? For this article, the answer is yes - clearly it's important to read the article to determine whether or not it's sourced. Merely guessing can result in the wrong answer. Being sourced (such as this article is) brings the advantage of a vaguely NPOV test of notability - someone else has found it notable enough to document - this is (I believe) a much more NPOV test than Do I personally find this article interesting? WilyD 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Delete - In addition to the problems we see alot with lists we also have the fact that WP is not a dictionary, not a slang archive. The article lacks sources and is unverifiable. -- wtfunkymonkey 16:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, things like "image club" are verifiable if anyone could be bothered to try; encylopedic. Kappa 17:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'd just like to note that people aren't providing reasons for their "keep" votes. It's not enough to say it's encyclopaedic, particularly when so many have argued that it's inherently unencyclopaedic. While items on the list may be verifiable, that still doesn't provide a convincing rationale for keeping the list itself, as mentioned in the original post. Exploding Boy 17:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- The justification for keeping the list is that it explains a variety of encylopedic topics grouped in an obvious way. Kappa 17:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- But it doesn't. It's just a list of non-English terms. All the Japanese sex-related articles should already appear in List of sexology topics, and every article that uses Japanese terminology should already be explaining those terms within the article. Exploding Boy 17:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes it does. List of sexology topics doesn't explain anything, are you suggesting we add the explanations there? Kappa 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'd just like to note that people aren't providing reasons for their "keep" votes. It's not enough to say it's encyclopaedic, particularly when so many have argued that it's inherently unencyclopaedic. While items on the list may be verifiable, that still doesn't provide a convincing rationale for keeping the list itself, as mentioned in the original post. Exploding Boy 17:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. May well be verifiable, but shouldn't be here: belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. WMMartin 17:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, or even a regular dictionary. A big list of words and definitions beside them is called a dictionary. Slang is not only hard to cite, but it also means different things in different areas/eras. Also this is an english encyclopedia, so an article that primarily carries foreign langauge is not suited here. Not encyclopedic. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if sources can be found. Singapore sexual slang terminology looks to me like a good example of what this article could be. I wonder why most of the articles linked to from this list aren't in Category:Sexual slang. —Wrathchild (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note. The artilce has had a "source request" tag up for the last three weeks. Apparently no addiitonal sources are available. -Will Beback 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all the Delete votes. This is Wikipedia, not Sugoipedia (sou desu ne :P). Danny Lilithborne 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary, then Delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)- Keep per precedent per Wrathchild. Carlossuarez46 23:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep a precise list of terms on a given specific subject is authorized by policy. Terms such as bukkake, gokkun etc. are extremely well known and verifiable through tons of sources. I don't even understand the objection on that score. The nom seems to be questioning the raison d'etre of this list. Well, for better or worse, Japan and sex have been tightly intertwined in the western imagination since at least the 19th century. The interest in Japanese erotica is thus not new and is today a serious subject for critical examination and scholarship [14]. The vast popularity of specific Japanese porn genres in the west is just a later-day manifestation of the previous craze for Japanese erotic prints. Given the cultural divide, it is entirely appropriate for wikipedia to maintain a list of this type for its mainly English speaking readers. --JJay 23:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Every term is either in or not in a dictionary; those that are in dictionaries are obviously verifiable. Verifiability is not an issue. Fg2 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete is not a dictonary. Arbusto 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete (1) Dicdef. (2) What's verifiable already has its own article. Everything else is unverifiable. (3) This is another of many cases where a "List of..." should be a category. There already is Category:Japanese sex terms even in the article itself, so this list is redundant -- not to mention they're harder to maintain. Anomo 03:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- So this list of foreign language terms with explanations is redundant with an incredibly useful list of foreign language terms without explanations? Kappa 09:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep per the reasoning in the previous VfD. Useful list that points to useful articles, inherently encyclopedic and so on. Grue 08:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Anomo. -- Hoary 09:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per official Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Note that the list is also rather inaccurate. It might be better titled List of random Japanese words that some otaku think might sometimes be associated with sex. How the hell are "bishōjo" and "bishōnen" sex terms? (And in what parallel universe does anyone use the word "bishōjo" by itself to refer to eroge?) How is "dōjin" a sex term, given that dojin works are no more exclusively pornographic than Western vanity publications are? — Haeleth Talk 09:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Amen to that. ShizuokaSensei 10:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- AfD is not a place for content concerns. That's why there's an edit button. WilyD 14:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- True, but let it be noted that a major cleanup on this list was only done after the list was AFDd. Exploding Boy 19:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- The lesson here is, never attempt to clean up an article after it goes on AFD. Kappa 04:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- True, but let it be noted that a major cleanup on this list was only done after the list was AFDd. Exploding Boy 19:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; encyclopedia =/= dictionary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't understand how anyone can argue this is encyclopædic. It is a list of foreign words with definitions. Additionally, Haeleth is absolutely right about it being a very Western-otaku-biased "article" with very little Japanese language comprehension: even as a dictionary article it is not very good. The onus of explaining the individual terms should be on the individual articles, as linked-to from the Japanese Sex Terms category. Finally, do the 'keepers' not see the redundancy, all other arguments aside, of a "list of japanese sex terms" article within the overall category "Japanese sex terms"? Erk, 1345, 10 November 2006 (GMT-8).
- For those not following the discussion, how is a list of defined foreign language terms redundant with a list of undefined foreign language terms? Kappa 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This iscnot what wikipedia is for.
- Weak Keep Presuming the terms can be verified. Given that for some of the terms we have extensive articles on them it isn't unreasonable to have a list of all the highly notable Japanese sexual terms. The only issue is that it might make more sense as a subcategory of sexual slang rather than as a list. JoshuaZ 04:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unverifiable list. JASpencer 09:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:V, if you can't source it, delete it.Sources cited, so change to a keep. Seraphimblade 01:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)- Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wiktionary is a dictionary. -- Stbalbach 06:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I am not sure how this list is any more or less unencyclopaedic than any other list on wikipedia. How is this any different from the List of gay slang words and phrases, the List of films that most frequently use the word fuck, etc...The terms are all verifiable, there is ample precident for this kind of lists, or lists in general. If people think this list should be deleted, then the opinion should hold that 100% of lists should be deleated, as they are all equally unencyclopaedic.MightyAtom 01:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- List of gay slang words and phrases is at least defensible on the grounds that the terms are in English. As for the other article.... it's been AFDd at least 5 times. Exploding Boy 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
So I checked as to why that list survived. "Like other 'lists of trivia', they are interesting and not detrimental to the encyclopedia." Seems like that could apply here as well. It is all verifiable info. Its interesting. Seriously, what is the point of lists at all, anyways? None of them are "unencyclopaedic." Delete this one, delete them 100%. MightyAtom 00:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Has it occured to you that those articles may be just as deserving as deletion as this one? After all Wikipedia is not subject to precident.(actually the list of films with the word fuck is very well sourced, but is not a dictionary list) HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with HighInBC's comment. I can't find a thing to verify most of these terms, but if they're easily verifiable, cite sources and I'll happily change votes! The main sticking point here is the lack of verifiability, so at least to my thinking, fix that and the whole issue goes away. Seraphimblade 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The books "Japan's Sex Trade" and "Japanese Street Slang" by Peter Constantine can verify some of these, but dictionary issues?... Pete Fenelon 01:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and transwiki to Wiktionary, if they want it. It's not sourced and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The cleaned up version of the page is just as invalid as the full version (which would have been better material for Wiktionary.) The cleaned up version consists of a list of links to other articles in the project. There's no need for that. Inclusion of other articles is not an indicator of notability. --Kunzite 05:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. If this list is going to survive, what is listed on it needs to be very closely monitored. The fact so little of this article's definitions are unique to Japan is a big part of the problem with it. Very little of what was listed is unique to Japan - it simply defines a Japanese word for something which goes on all over the world. This is a deeper problem with Wiki wearby numerous topics of little or no note are documented in great depth, but let's not get into that here. So, what is of note out of the article? Just up to H, I'd argue that at least half of what is currently there is not in anyway unique to Japan and merely serves as a DicDef.
- Bukkake: A Japanese invention - worthy of inclusion
- Chikan: Not unique to Japan - of little note. However, has a long and meandering article (lifting large sections from Rotton.com as a source) suggesting otherwise...
- Ecchi: Links to the article for the English letter H. A foreign slang word for sex - of little note
- Enjo kosai: The Japanese term for underage prostitution - at a strech worthy of inclusion
- Futanari: Japanese for hermaphrodites - of little note
- Fuzoku: Defined as meaning "sex culture" in Japanese Doesn't have an article. Of little note.
- Gokkun: A genre of Japanese porn. Worthy of inclusion
- Hentai: Defined as "pervert." This is a much wider part of sex culture, so worthy of inclusion
- Comment. If this list is going to survive, what is listed on it needs to be very closely monitored. The fact so little of this article's definitions are unique to Japan is a big part of the problem with it. Very little of what was listed is unique to Japan - it simply defines a Japanese word for something which goes on all over the world. This is a deeper problem with Wiki wearby numerous topics of little or no note are documented in great depth, but let's not get into that here. So, what is of note out of the article? Just up to H, I'd argue that at least half of what is currently there is not in anyway unique to Japan and merely serves as a DicDef.
Any thoughts?ShizuokaSensei 07:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP not a dictionary. Eusebeus 12:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep -- I voted to delete this before, but I've changed my mind, because the article is in different shape now. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but these are not simply translations of English phrases into Japanese but rather a completely different beast: sociological phenomena of sexuality in Japan, explained, and with articles about (most of) them. This could maybe use a renaming of some kind, but this list is cut down to the essentials and is encyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) and you'll see that this kind of list is much like other kinds of lists given there. I can't help but think that many of the people who endorse deletion under the dictionary argument haven't noticed these points, but rather noticed the "list of ... terms" and didn't like the article concept. So like I said, maybe renaming is a good idea, but I'm not sure to what. Still, this goes well beyond mere "terms." Mangojuicetalk 19:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Changing to Keep per changes indicated by Mangojuice and others, above. I think it is now definitely encyclopedic and fits the guidelines indicated on Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep its sourced. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:55, 15 November 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.
- 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 was Speedy Keep per recent discussion. Use WP:DRV. Naconkantari 20:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Third holiest site in Islam
I am nominating this article for deletion second time. First time according to my count 27 votes were for deletion and 19 for keeping. The deletion votes were coming more regularly in the end but it was closed. If the admin had extended it closing deadline then we might had reach on a consensus. The reasons of deleting it are many. (1) The sources used for making other sites as third holiest sites are not reliable. Mostly the criterion of number of people visiting a site is used to make it holiest for Muslims then our third holy site Al-Aqsa Mosque. (2) A very vast majority of Muslim agree that third holiest site is Al-Aqsa Mosque and Al-Aqsa Mosque article could have a section for small minority not agree with it. Creating a new separate article looks like a effort to make our claim of majority disputed and a conspiracy against Muslims. (3) The references that Al-Aqsa Mosque is indeed third holiest site (nothing else) are very strong. We have many hadiths from Sahih Bukahri and others. Furthermore, also it was place towards where Muslim used to offer their Prayer instead of Kaba in Mecca. It is our Kabla-Awal (first Kaba). How could something be holiest than our Kabla-awal? Please do not use CNN/Fox as a source to tell Muslim that Al-Aqsa Mosque is no more third holiest to us. ابراهيم 09:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- COMMENT: Adding "strong" to your vote is utterly meaningless and does not add anything to the debate. Please stop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-09 11:14:46
- As the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion used to explain, it means that one's position is strongly held and only likely to be changed by a strong counterargument or good evidence to the contrary. Uncle G 12:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- So...pretty much like every other vote then, in terms of actual value. Therefore pretty pointless. Dev920 (Please vote here) 18:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- As the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion used to explain, it means that one's position is strongly held and only likely to be changed by a strong counterargument or good evidence to the contrary. Uncle G 12:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin(s): although it is generally recognized that AfDs are not about delete or keep counts please do take care to read the arguments on this page thoroughly as well do take into consideration the religious affiliations of those involved in the debate. In particular take note of the fact that the site of the Al Aqsa Mosque is disputed between Muslims and Jews. Given the fact that there is no equivalent First holiest site in Islam or Second holiest site in Islam the creation (and the content) of this article and it being a sort of directory/list of "holiest somethings" should make evident the soapbox nature of the content found therein. Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete obviously my vote is delete. --- ابراهيم 11:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- AfD is not a vote. Pretending to vote as nominator is extremely bad form. WilyD 22:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I don't think he did this in bad faith, I think he was simply making a redundent statement after his explaination. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think he did it in bad faith either - but he or she keeps insisting that AfD is a vote (for example, in the nom) and this kind of misconception needs to be warded off. WilyD 23:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think he did this in bad faith, I think he was simply making a redundent statement after his explaination. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
*Strong Keep per nom. - Akaneon 11:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- How could you have keep per nominator ? Is that a mistake or a joke ? --- ابراهيم 11:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Closing admin Please discard such votes that are there for fun only . --- ابراهيم 11:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked as a troll. Yanksox 12:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Closing admin Please discard such votes that are there for fun only . --- ابراهيم 11:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- How could you have keep per nominator ? Is that a mistake or a joke ? --- ابراهيم 11:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fun or not, it's a keep. Amoruso 12:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Dev920 (Please vote here) 09:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - but Third holiest site in Islam is kind of a subjective, non encylclopaedic title for an article, isnt it? Amists 10:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is not really subjective but some people are trying to make it subjective in this article. For example: a hadith from Sahih Bukhari: "the Prophet of Allah Muhammad said a prayer in the Sacred Mosque (in Mecca) is worth 100,000 prayers; a prayer in my mosque (in Medina) is worth 1,000 prayers; and a prayer in al-Masjid al-Aqsa is worth 500 prayers more than in an any other mosque. Also another hadith says: ... Not to travel (for visiting) except for three mosques: Masjid-al-Haram (in Mecca), my Mosque (in Medina), and Masjid-al-Aqsa (in Jerusalem).[Sahih Bukhari: Volume 3, Book 29, Number 87]. This article try to conspire against our Kabla-awal. Muslims have ever offer prayer towards only two places Kaba in Mecca and Al-Aqsa Mosque. But they are telling us other sites are more holiest to us. --- ابراهيم 10:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Speedy Keep. Should be closed since last nomination was very recent. Seems to be a misplaced nomination not understanding what consencus is. It really wastes everyone's time to list an article for deletion every two days. Close please. Amoruso 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- COMMENTplease note this user (Amoruso) started this article ([24]) & his motivation seems obvious: (1) the noble sanctuary which includes the Al-Aqsa Mosque is only given a perfunctory mention in his original article, & it is unquestionably the 'third holiest site in islam' per all the reasons given here. (2) there is an ongoing dispute over the status of the noble sanctuary because it is also the temple mount, the holiest site of judaism (3) it is quite obvious where amoruso stands in that particular debate. QED this article is intended to mislead uninformed readers interested in the conflict over the noble sanctuary/temple mount. as tendentious, trouble-making, falsehood it shld be deleted & redirected to Al-Aqsa Mosque perhaps with relevant changes in that article. there is no need for a vote, this is a simple matter of NPOV. → bsnowball 13:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per Amoruso. Beit Or 11:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The previous AfD was closed (by me) a couple of days ago as "no consensus". This should really be an issue for WP:DRV, and in hindsight maybe I should have relisted the AfD to attain a better consensus. Anyway, this is an article that seems to deal with an issue that is somewhat potentially inflammatory (weasel wording intended). I do not know the fundamental details of this issue, but I can see that there are differing views on the matter. From what I can see, there is some substance to the claims made in the article. Perhaps an acceptable compromise can be reached if an article named Holy sites in Islam or Muslim Holy Sites, in which the holy sites were not ranked, was created.--Ezeu 11:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- You mean just a list? I do not think we need just a list and a category could do that more effectively. I also think that such article already exist as pointed by User:Zora. Please do not close this AFD article this time and leave it to some other admin. It is just a request if you could fulfill. --- ابراهيم 11:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Rest assured that I will not close this AfD. Not only is it unfair to close an AfD in which one has given an opinion, but it is also against Wikipedia policy. Could you please point out and give a link to the article that lists Muslim Holy Sites. If such an article exists, I see no reason why this article cannot be merged/redirected to that one.--Ezeu 11:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete as per nom. TruthSpreaderTalk 11:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Some admin take notice that User:Amoruso is removing all the tags related to "citation" and "source verifiablity" in the middle of AFD . So that if someone look at the article he finds no problem with Yacky sources used in the article. Please stop him from doing so until this AFD is closed. --- ابراهيم 11:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- These tags were added yesterday in excessive form with some violent language [25] all over the article, where it's all already covered in the genral totallydisputed tag on the top. Tags aren't placed on every sentence without reason just because one doesn't like the article. It will be as if one will nominate an article for deletion every two days under false excuses just because he doesn't like it... things we don't do. Cheers. Amoruso 11:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- The total disputed article does not talk about individual sources used in the article. I have not added those link and not even ask someone to add them. Do not try to represent the article yacky sources in a good way by mass edit of yours.--- ابراهيم 11:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please review Wikipedia conventions on good faith uses of tags. totallydisputed tags covers everything. If you feel every sentence is not properly sourced use talk page or place one tag at proper section, not 200 tags. Thank you. Amoruso 11:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- The total disputed article does not talk about individual sources used in the article. I have not added those link and not even ask someone to add them. Do not try to represent the article yacky sources in a good way by mass edit of yours.--- ابراهيم 11:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information). This article is essentially a POV fork. BhaiSaab talk 11:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- BhaiSaab talk 11:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per last time Avi 12:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Can someone please explain to me why certain people are insistant on tagging all the claims as][verification needed][please verify the credibility of this source]?
- WP:V states: “Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources”
- Wikipedia:No original research states: There is no firm definition of "reliable," although most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by university presses; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals published by known publishing houses.
- W:NPOV states: Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material. They are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce....most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources.
- Kairouan & Professor Bowen’s research on Hala Sultan Tekke, - both sections have are sourced from journals published by university presses and the authors are academics. Umayyad Mosque, Fez, Morocco, Aljama Mosque, Spain, Takht-i-Suleiman, are sourced from online magazines, journalists and other travel destination researchers. Many of the Shia Muslim sites are from mainstream online newspapers; Al Kadhimiya Mosque is a Primary Source - an interview, etc.
- The tags seem to be a ploy to discredit all the claims in order to stop these claims from being acknowledged. Chesdovi 12:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well said. Amoruso 12:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Travel destination researchers? thestick 14:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Speedy Keep Recent AfD which failed to reach consensus. Will probably fail to do so again. Pursey 12:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per prvious AfD. The fact that a topic is controversial is no reason for deletion. Stammer 12:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment User:ALM scientist lists the reasons for deletoing as follows:
- The sources used for making other sites as third holiest sites are not reliable. Mostly the criterion of number of people visiting a site is used to make it holiest for Muslims then our third holy site Al-Aqsa Mosque.
- How can you clarify this? I read that The Imam Ali mosque received more pilgrims? Besides, all along it has been argued that this has nothing to do with it, but rather it is the 3rd holiest b/c of Koran, hadith etc!
- A very vast majority of Muslim agree that third holiest site is Al-Aqsa Mosque and Al-Aqsa Mosque article could have a section for small minority not agree with it. Creating a new separate article looks like a effort to make our claim of majority disputed and a conspiracy against Muslims.
- This was originally included in a section in Al Aqsa mosques, but was removed after complaints and a new article was created to conform with W:NPOV
- The references that Al-Aqsa Mosque is indeed third holiest site (nothing else) are very strong. We have many hadiths from Sahih Bukahri and others. Furthermore, also it was place towards where Muslim used to offer their Prayer instead of Kaba in Mecca. It is our Kabla-Awal (first Kaba). How could something be holiest than our Kabla-awal? Please do not use CNN/Fox as a source to tell Muslim that Al-Aqsa Mosque is no more third holiest to us.
- The sources used for making other sites as third holiest sites are not reliable. Mostly the criterion of number of people visiting a site is used to make it holiest for Muslims then our third holy site Al-Aqsa Mosque.
- There have been thorough arguments against this notion discussed in the previous deletion attempt. CNN/Fox are reliable sources whether you like it or not! Chesdovi 12:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- CNN/Fox/Time/PBS/CBS (and any other news source which this article may souurce) have said the Al-Aqsa mosque is Islams third holiest site several times, and it looks like they readily acknowledge the same. Take a look at the 40+ links someone compiled on the previous AfD discussion. thestick 14:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- It must be then that Al Aqsa isn’t the sole, exclusive third holiest? Chesdovi 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- User:ALM scientist states First time according to my count 27 votes were for deletion and 19 for keeping. The deletion votes were coming more regularly in the end but it was closed. I wonder why so many were suddenly coming in towards the end, did Count Iblis have anything to do with this? [27] Chesdovi 13:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - The third holiest site is recognised as Al Aqsa.All others shown in this article are important in themselves but it would not be very objective to award this title to all of them..If information is compiled in this way ..one will have to end up defining the meaning of "holiest".TerryJ-Ho 14:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. This is the English Wikipedia and not the Muslim Wikipedia and what consistitues a good source here and what consititutes a good source per Islam are not equivalent, even on Islamic topics. While some may want to create an encyclopedia within an encyclopedia here and only allow editing on Muslim topics by Muslim editors using Muslim sources, this is against the spirit of Wikipedia. I apologize to religious Muslims for this keep vote, but I feel it is very important. Elizmr 14:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- With respect, and without voting, becasue I am not sufficiently expert to know the relative standings of Muslim authorities, may I say that I cannot see how any non-Mulsim could properly edit on a Muslim topic: this is like opening all Christian articles to editing by Satanists, and saying that "freedom of opinion" prevents any reversion. -- Simon Cursitor
-
- Delete : Like I've said before, this article is an indiscriminate collection of links with no regard to factual accuracy or reliability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of Information. Several of the sources are not reliable sources and are not in accordance with WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable Sources (Several self published sources and no 3rd party analysis to back the sources) and Undue Weight is given to self published sources. While one can try to assume good faith, the creator(s)/major contributors themselves have expressed the political/religious inclinations they wish to satisfy by creating this article. It's unreasonable to assume good faith on part of users who openly declare that they are acting in bad faith. Therefore I feel this article was written in Bad faith, and on top of that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also, most of the article is just a collection of obscure external links which just say "site is third holiest" without any theological reason. So, that's a lot of policies violated. There were attempts to improve the article, but the long edit wars prove that this cannot be done. Finally, any credible information in this article has already been added to the respective articles of any site, so this article can be safely deleted without any loss of information. I also humbly request certain users that are in favour of keeping this article to refrain from resorting to insulting/flaming the users that want it deleted - and discuss the article itself. Also, I request some users that want it deleted to keep their cool. Any fears of "Only Muslims controlling what is said about Islam on wikipedia" are completely unfounded and keeping such an article is not the proper way to address such fears. If people readily accept whatever is written on the internet and everything was factually correct, wikipedia would not be required, Google would suffice. thestick 14:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- All very good points. --- ابراهيم 15:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG SPEEDY DELETE: Per my input at the previous AFD request. The article misinterprets the various weak citations given and jump to conclude that for example Eyup Mosque is the "Third Holiest site in Islam". I wonder which Islam is this? Turkish Islam? or Turkish Cypriot Islam or what? How many Islams are there?
- Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem's status is recognised in the authentic Islamic sources of the Quran and Hadith that has been agreed upon by all Muslims since 14 centuries. The article here is dubious, not scholarly, and I advise the champions of this article not to use the informations here on the show Who wants to be a Millionaire !!
- Much of the sites listed here may be enlisted, and some have been already been enlisted, at this article [28] and should not be listed under a controversial title like "Third Holiest site in Islam" if rigor and scholarship is to be maintained. Certainly the title "Third Holiest site in Islam" implies that this is a status given in the religion of Islam and relates to all Muslims regardless of being in Turkey or Pakistan or Tunisia. This title is to the common 3 cities notable to all muslims regardless of where they happen to be. Again to the Turkish example, it does not seem that Muslims give this recognition and embark on a journey to visit the mosques in Turkey and the Turkish Northern Cyprus Republic. Similar thing can be said to al-Juwanah mosque and so forth.
- I would like the champions of this article to give more credible citations "per the title of this article" possibly from peer reviewed Journals or Books. Finally, officially the Organisation of Islamic Countries OIC already recognises the holiness of these three cities Mecca Medina and Jerusalem TO ALL MUSLIMS [29]. Almaqdisi talk to me 14:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Obvious Keep - the article and topic are sourced and encyclopaedic. Reopening a previous discussion that was obviously never going to come to a conclusion (although it's clear anyone acting in good faith will conclude this article is a keep). AfD is not a vote, and exactly zero rational has been advanced for deletion that can be claimed to hold any water at all. Basically the only reason is "I disagree with the sourced, encyclopaedic information in this article. Therefor it should be deleted". That is what comes out of the north end of a south facing bull. WilyD 15:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- How can mentioning an error that was once in a faculty handbook be considered sourced and encyclopedic?. The reason for deletion is not because someone disagrees with the article. Go through the links once again and you'll see most of the sources for the bottom sites are from travel websites. The same news sites on which some sites were mentioned as third holiest write the Al-Aqsa mosque is the third holiest in other articles (which is why some believe they shouldn't be used as sources for theological subjects and especially given more importance than the scriptures of the religion). Also, declaring the concerns of other wikipedians as bullshit wont help anything. thestick 15:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- There are, in fact, a stack of references. The quality of any individual reference is an issue for the editors to work on. AfD is not a place for you to bring editing disputes. As for my negative view of POV warriors - it's important to identify them for what they are to ensure AfD gives the right result (apparently no concensus). WilyD 15:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- According to my count 24 references have problems. See yourself here . If one or two had problem then things might be different. --- ابراهيم
-
- "How can mentioning an error that was once in a faculty handbook be considered sourced and encyclopedic”. When it was first added there was no reason to believe it was an error. You still haven’t provided any proof that it was indeed an error. Besides there is no reason why mentioning things which are out of print or from an old edition should be a problem. Maybe it’s just that the King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals is not a reputable university? Chesdovi 15:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- A faculty handbook has no relation to the reputation of the university. It is NOT a research document or study. The introduction of the particular edition in question itself mentioned that there could be errors and requested that any errors be pointed out. The fact that it was replaced and that there are NO other sources to back the claim are enough proof. thestick 16:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete or redir to Al-Aqsa Mosque --Nielswik(talk) 15:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per above. Renom smacks of sour grapes. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. This is gonna come down to the same biases as before. I still maintain the encyclopædic value of this article as there are different "third holiest site"s and different "the far mosque"s that at least 10% of Islam believes in. We shouldn't discount 100,000,000 people just because some of us may happen to disagree with them. Valley2city 17:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep I'm willing to listen to opposing arguments, but I don't want to rehash this every week. Deleters: try working on the article, see what happens. IronDuke 17:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- People have tried several times to work on the article, only get their edits reverted/deleted, and this has been going on for a long time. Also, 10% is the total percentage of Shiite Muslims, not the % of Muslims that don't believe the Al-Aqsa Mosque is the third holiest site in Islam. Also, please help in reaching some consensus instead of voting keep just because the article was renominated for deletion. Also, to see the 'other' bias behind this article, just check out the previous AfD [30] and if you're using firefox search for "I will settle" , "fanatics", read the entire comments, and also look at the talk page the AfD. thestick 18:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Stick, I have no doubt it's frustrating. But the last vote clearly lacked consensus. Instead of forcing everyone to jump through the same hoops (where you'll likely have the same result) try changing consensus through persuasion. Easier said than done, I know. But this exercise seems pointless to me. IronDuke 18:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm generally skeptical to rankings such as these to begin with - it should suffice that Jerusalem/Al Quds is a holy city in Islam; but it's certainly worth explaining that there is at least some contention whether other cities are more important. Perhaps the article should be renamed, but to delete or redirect to Al Aksa mosque amounts to burying the issue. Also, I don't think a speedy second nomination is in good form. --Leifern 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete To say the something is the Xth most Yiest place on Z requires alot of citation that is not contradicted. Whats more this article is about a place that already has an article. This article is redundent and misinformative. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm not happy with the article's present state, but deletion is unwarranted. --tickle me 18:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Improve. Bad faith nomination based it seems on the nominator simply not liking the clear outcome of the previous AfD listing. 27 votes one way and 19 another is practically a working definition of 'no consensus'. Wikipedia is not a democracy so a majority is immaterial given the number of dissenters. Obviously this article needs work, but this has been through AfD already and shouldn't have returned to it. -Markeer 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think if we assume good faith here, then we come to the conclusion that this was put up because consensus was lacking in the last one. There is no reason to beleive this nom is bad faith. Like you said it is not a democracy, and the number 27vs19 do not mean much without context. I honestly beleive the consensus was lacking in the last AfD. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. It is an interesting article. I never knew that so many places have been considered the third holiest in the islam. Gidonb 19:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and merge salvageable parts in the relevant article on the Mosque. The reason is that this article is merely a list of mostly non-notable utterances by non-scholarly media sources, and as such, does not warrant an entry into an encyclopedia except (and forgive me for saying this) for malicious intentions. It would be one thing if this article documents actual scholarly references to various sites that are regarded as the 'third holiest', but this article actually is a compilation of quotes by various individuals or media organisations - that mostly have no scholarly knowledge of the subject and would probably stand corrected if confronted - that passingly referred to some site or another as the "third holiest" for Muslims. "Passive reference" from sources such as a reporter or a member of a non-relevant organisation is not grounds to creating an encyclopedic article. If this article was quoting people who actually know what they are talking about, e.g. Karen Armstrong, it would be a different story. But as it stands now, it makes a mockery out of the Wikipedia project. Ramallite (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Since when does K. Armstrong know what she's talking about? She's a self taught writer on religion. --tickle me 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, at least she is a writer on religion, which these sources are not. And that's the point: The vast majority of the sources used in this article are NOT sources that are discussing the "level of holiness" of the Aqsa Mosque. These are just random utterances in passing by people who were not saying what they said to make an argument about what is or is not the third holiest site in Islam. If this article stays, it would need to be encyclopedic - meaning that it would have to include sources that are making an argument about the holiness of the Mosque and not just news clippings of quotations being uttered in passing by people who are actually emphasizing a different matter entirely. That is why this article is just disingenuous and horribly misleading and un-encyclopedic. I personally (or impersonally) don't really care about categorizing physical structures in terms of holiness to a particular religion - but what I do care about is good editing and sound articles. This article, in its present form, makes a mockery out of WP:RS and WP:V to name just two. Ramallite (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Since when does K. Armstrong know what she's talking about? She's a self taught writer on religion. --tickle me 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, no consensus was the decision just a few days ago. --- RockMFR 20:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep at whatever rate of speed is appropriate. The article seems to have enough reliable-seeming sources for other contenders as third holiest site in Islam. 6SJ7 21:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per thestick & Ramallite. Though it troubles me this was just closed as an AfD 2 days ago, thestick's argument is very persuasive. Furthermore, well this article is sourced, it is a mismash of sources that first tries to establish Al-Aqsa Mosque as the 3rd holiest site for Shiites, then goes on to list every other site that anyone may consider the 3rd holiest site. Many of these soures might be reliable for other things, but I don't know how you could consider Time magazine, the Boston Globe, or several other of the sources to be in any way a reliable authority on what the "3rd holiest site in Islam" may be. Beyond that this is essentially a indiscriminate collection of information with no compelling argument, reasoning, or sourcing to indicate that the "3rd holiest site in Islam" is in any way an important or notable concept in Islam. Why is there an article on Third holiest site in Islam and not Second holiest site in Islam or Fourth holiest site in Islam? Like I said before, I'm not crazy about a renom 2 days later, but in my opinion the first AfD got it wrong.--Isotope23 21:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- The last nom came to no decision, so it could not be wrong. No consensus. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- The answer to "why the third, not second or fourth?" should be pretty obvious to anyone with a passing acquaintance with Islam - one and two are (essentially) undisputed, leaving third as "the most important contraversy". WilyD 22:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have more than a passing acquaintance with Islam and I still think this article is completely unecessary. It's not a controversy; it's a collection of non-reliable sources on this topic... and I think the no consensus was wrong.--Isotope23 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is actually a collection of non-relevant sources that are not on this topic - and that's the problem as I see it. Ramallite (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - per Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "Repeated nomination for deletion: 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." ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Given the subject as soon as I saw Jerusalem I immediately suspected this was a grudge delete. The article looked well researched it looks encyclopedic, if I had time I would read it with interest (I might later)--Mike 23:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete / Redirect Alright, this seems a bit ridiculous for me. The 'third holiest site in Islam,' despite being somewhat arbitrary and an unwieldy title, is logically the same as whatever the proper name of the 'third holiest site' is. To use a bit of logic, using the law of identity, the 'Third Holiest Site..." is "Al-Aqsa Mosque," i.e. they are equal to one another. Thus, having separate articles for both amounts to having two separate articles for the exact same thing. Merge whatever material is here that isn't on the Mosque's page, delete this article and have it redirect to the third holiest site in Islam. A redirect should be sufficient; in the unlikely case where someone would actually look for the 'third holiest...," if an article pops up for a specific place I'm sure they'll figure out that that place is the 'third holiest...' --The Way 23:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There is not and has not ever been an official or agreed upon "third holiest" in Islam. Muslims have long written about it. --Shamir1 00:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per original vote. Evolver of Borg 00:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is my 2 cents worth: I would like to ask why there is no article called "First Holy City in Islam" or "Second holy City in Islam"? I think there is enough junky material on the Web that can support such a WikiPedia article if the same standards for creating the third holiest article are followed. For example, only one hour of so-called research I spent on the Web was enough for me to collect to citations that disupte that Madina is the second Holiest city in Islam. Here are these citations
First one: At an earlier time, it was the practice to face Jerusalem, the second holiest city in Islam.[31]
Second one: the cousin of the Prophet Mohammed, is Muslim Shiites second holiest site after Mecca in Saudi Arabia. [32]
Third one: Three holiest places in Islam: the Arabian Peninsula first, Iraq second, and Jerusalem, which is held by the Israelis, third. [33]
Fourth one: I’ll tell you how to embolden an enemy – invade the second-holiest land of Islam [34]
Fifth one: There was no reference in the letter of an Australian ‘self-identified’ Christian who set fire to the Muslims’ second holiest shrine in East Jerusalem two decades earlier. [35]
Sixth: Iraq is the second holiest land in Islam [36]
Seventh: paving the way to creating the opportunity for laying hands on and destroying the Dome of the Rock, the second holiest place after Mecca for Moslems [37]
Eight: The invasion of Iraq was a gift to bin Laden, the second holiest land in Islam [38]
Nine: His writing about the assault in Islam's second-holiest shrine is lyrical [39]
Ten: Iraq is smack in the middle of the Islamic world and the second holiest place in Islam [40]
Eleven: as all point to the unholy occupation of Islam’s second holiest site, The Dome of the Rock [41]
Twelve: could ever manage to tear down the Dome of the Rock (Islam's second holiest site [42]
Thirteen: In the background is the Dome of Rock, second holiest site in Islam.(Episcopal News Service photo by James Solheim) [43]
Fourteen: Netanyahu's next step was approving the opening of a tunnel under Islam's second holiest site, Al-Aqsa Mosque [44]
Fifteen: The French attitude to the conquest of the second holiest state in Islam is in part because their country is a functional democracy [45]
Sixteen: all of his history and why Jerusalem is the second holiest site for Muslims [46] Seventeen: Iraq, which, after all, is the second holiest place in Islam [47]
Eighteen: Following the burning in 1969 of the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, the second holiest shrine of Islam [48][49]
Nineteen: Iraq is the second holiest land in Islam; a place where Islam had been long suppressed by Saddam [50]
Twenty: rebuild the Temple. The fact that the second holiest Mosque in Islam presently sits on the site is [51]
Twenty one: The war “validated” what radical Muslims had said about “American aggressiveness against Islam. It made us the occupiers of the second holiest place for Muslims in the world [52]
Twenty two: Since al-Awza'i is Lebanon's second holiest and most ancient Moslem exceeded in age and importance by the Qubba of the Sitt Kholat, granddaughter of the Prophet [53]
Twenty three: At the centre of that conflict is Jerusalem, the unofficial capital of the Christian faith and at the same time, Islam’s second holiest [54]
Twenty four: Forget that there are U.S. troops in the second holiest country in Islam [55]
Twenty five: One of the mosques is the Dome of the Rock, the earliest Islamic monument which dates from 684 AD which marks the second holiest site in Islam [56]
Twenty six: 45 and married women over 35 were allowed to enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, Islam’s. second holiest site [57]
Twenty Seven: Iraq is second in his list of priorities because it is the second holiest country in Islam [58]
Twenty eight: the Al-Aqsa Masjid in Eastern Jerusalem: the second holiest Masjid in Islam [59]
Twenty nine: to occupy Iraq which is the second holiest place in Islam [60]
Thirty: Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam [61]
Thirty one: to rebuild Solomon's Temple (starting with knocking down the second holiest shrine in Islam!) [62]
Thirty two: Barak, at the last minute, threw in a klinker, and demanded that the Muslim world agree, through Arafat, to turn over the second-holiest place in Islam, a mosque on a mountain there, in Jerusalem, called Al-Haram al-Sharif, and make it a Jewish temple to be taken over, actually, by certain American Protestant circles, who want to create the Battle of Armageddon, and similar kinds of festivities [63]
Thirty three: American tanks were near the second holiest shrine in Islam [64]
Thirty four: eventually the Al-Aqsa mosque, the second holiest site in all Islam [65]
Thirty five: The Al Aqsa mosque ......it would be difficult for non-Muslims to enter the area which is filled with devout Muslims praying in the second Holiest site for Islam after Mecca. [66]
Thirty six: Zionists are lusting to see the Dome of the Rock (Islam's second holiest shrine) blown up [67]
Thirty seven: Bukhara was considered the second holiest city next to Mecca [68]
Thirty eight: the place at which he is said to have ascended into heaven- and the Dome of the Rock- the second holiest site, after the black rock in Mecca, of Islam [69]
Forty: The United States is currently in Iraq, (which is considered the second holiest place in Islam) [70]
Forty one: The purpose of Catholic Crusades was to bring Jerusalem under Catholic control. Catholics massacred every Jew and Muslim in Jerusalem after the First Crusades. The Muslim's second holiest Mosque of the Dome converted to Catholic Church for over 200 years before it was conquered by Saladin, and converted back into Mosque. [71]
Forty two: Further, the second holiest site to Islam, the Dome of the Rock, is placed squarely in the yard of Solomon's original temple [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/religion/article_21228898.shtml]
Forty three: That obstacle is the second holiest place of the Muslim faith, the Dome of the Rock. [72]
Forty four: second holiest place of the Moslem faith, the Dome of the Rock [73]
Forty five: File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Islam’s second holiest site, the Dome of the Rock which is now in Israel has. been one reason for the continued support of Palestine in Islamic populations [74]
Forty six: American-led invasion of Islam’s second-holiest [75]
Forty seven: Bam was Islam’s second holiest [76]
Forty eight: (the temple-mount, called Moriah) has also been Islam's second holiest sight (after Mecca) [77]
Forty nine: The Israeli army clashed with Palestinians after restricting their access to East Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa mosque compound for the first Friday of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said he was ready to negotiate peace with the Palestinians. Only married men over 45 and married women over 35 would be allowed to enter the compound, Islam’s second holiest site, the police were quoted by Agence France-Presse (AFP). [78]
Fifty: Only married men over 45 and married women over 35 would be allowed to enter the compound, Islam’s second holiest site,” an Israeli police source [79]
Fifty one: Israel's intended rape of the second holiest place of Islam, Jerusalem's al- Haram-al-Sharif [80]
Fifty two: The Qods (Jerusalem) Day demonstrations, staged by the Iranian administration every year on the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan, are aimed at liberating Jerusalem, the second-holiest place for Moslems after Mecca, from Israeli occupation. [81]
Fifty three: The Dome of the Rock, a fairly unimportant shrine for centuries, was elevated to the position of second holiest shrine in Islam [82]
Fifty four: the second holiest site to Islam, the Dome of the Rock, is placed squarely in the yard of Solomon’s original temple [83]
Fifty five: Its makers believe the creation of this Red Heifer would be a holy signal to destroy the second-holiest Islamic shrine, known to Westerners as "Dome of the Rock" [84]
Fifty six: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Libya were Orthodox Christian nations at the time of Arab Muslim conquests after 640 AD. The purpose of Catholic Crusades was to bring Jerusalem under Catholic control. Catholics massacred every Jew and Muslim in Jerusalem after the First Crusades. The Muslim's second holiest Mosque of the Dome converted to Catholic Church for over 200 years before it was conquered by Saladin, and converted back into Mosque. [85]
Fifty seven: Jewish terrorists attack second holiest site in Islam [86]
Fifty eight: the Dome of the Rock- the second holiest site, after the black rock in Mecca [87]
Fifty nine: The second Holiest place in Islam is located right on the spot of where the Holy of Holies of the old Jewish Temple was located. The Dome of the Rock is supposed to be the place where their prophet ascended unto heaven. [88]
Sixty: the centre of the whole, the sacred rock in. the mosque of ‘Omar, the second holiest site in all. Islam, [89]
Want more, maybe about the first holiest site this time
! I have more if you want but I do not seriously want to waste your time seriously on this. I ask you guys to DELETE this nonsense article called "Third Holiest Site in Islam". Otherwise, it will be unfair to my CLASSY RESEARCH to be wasted by not creating a new article talking about the "Second Holiest site or sites of Islam!!" to argue al-Madina's status in Islam. Please do not waste this most REMARKABLE RESEARCH hour I have ever done in my life
!!!! Wow, this stuff is getting really cooler than the way it started!!! Almaqdisi talk to me 02:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I think the new arguments for "keep," where they seem sincere, elevate procedure over policy. Where the arguments for "keep" sincerely concern content questions, I repeat again that any actual "controversy" here could and should be discussed on pages devoted to articles on respective sites, using authoritative sources. I myself harbor no illusions regarding the nature of this piece, and I assume its more vigorous defenders don't either, so I will be frank: WP is not a soapbox, nor a battleground. The authors of this piece seem to me to want to use WP to bait Muslims with a made-up "controversy" regarding their sacred sites, and they have done so. I am sure that anyone here who has previously encountered long-term, complex editing abuse in other subject areas recognizes the systematic and sustained pattern of exploitation of policy for mischievous purposes that we see here. We have also seen before how WP procedures for addressing the problems caused by partisan posters are defeated when more than a few gather to prevent corrective action based on "a consensus." While it is clear, given the nature of this dispute, that a "consensus" cannot be achieved realistically, it is also clear that, given the references this article lines up, "the controversy" this article seeks to establish does not exist in any substantial form anyway. Those of you in the US may be aware of a particular Fox News commentator who uses the network to flog sales of a sensationalist book he wrote on a "liberal conspiracy against Christmas." This is exactly that kind of shallow, partisan scholarship, entirely intended to cause a ridiculous dispute, that I am seeing the WP mainspace, procedures and policy being exploited to perpetuate here. As some of the comments in this AfD and the last one show, there are people in the real world and on WP who are gullible enough to believe "any" reference, or "any" article, even on WP, substantiates "anything." --Amerique dialectics 02:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think that your statement, while it may seem sincere, is a total violation of WP:AGF and a textbook demonstration of why we have that rule. ...the systematic and sustained pattern of exploitation of policy for mischievous purposes that we see here. That is an extremely unhealthy view of your fellow editors, and I hope that you could sincerely read the policy and understand why this is inappropriate. TewfikTalk 20:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Reply I call it as I see it. The editors in question seem fine Wikipedians with great records in other capacities, I would say especially on topics that have to to do with Israel or Judasim, but sustained efforts to paint this one particular Islamic site a certain way don't at all seem "well-intentioned" to me. To me, the bending of WP policies and prodecures to allow for this here and in other articles qualifies as a complex pattern of editing abuse, and I would advise all editors truly concerned with WP policy over their own politics not to support the keeping of this article.--Amerique dialectics 23:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- but surely Tew the whole point of this is that (at least regarding the article's creator, in this instance) good faith is demostrably lacking, per my above on User:Amoruso and others noting the 'pov fork'. but contra Amer this instance seems to be a blatant attempt on the part of Amoruso to confuse a very important issue "to do with Israel or Judasim". again, everyone pls check [90] → bsnowball 11:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ha ? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. It's the Muslim editors who wanted this to move out of the Al Aqsa Mosque article [91]. None of us will have any problem is this content stayed there - but obviously then that information will be deleted from there as well. It's a question of censoring, we don't care where the information will be as long as it appears on the original article as well, but the motive behind some might be different as apparent and the information will be deleted regardless where it is for specfic agenda I think. Amoruso 13:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- if that is your only problem then take Al Aqsa Mosque & your proposed additions to arbitration & get that sorted out. should only need a minor mention, as the 'controversy' is greatly exagerated by yourself (but again, this can be sorted in arbitration). the, ah, flimsyness of your excuse for this pov article can only reinforce the impression that it is an attempt to confuse readers (as per my aboves & others) → bsnowball 15:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Amoruso, with all due respect, the link you just provided to substantiate your assertion that "It's the Muslim editors who wanted to move this out of the Al Aqsa article" shows only that you did this on your own initiative after the suggestion of David Kernow, a first-time visitor to the article and the first respondent to the NPOV survey, who does not identify as Muslim. But if I am reading the rest of your words correctly, by saying "we don't care where the information will be" do you mean that you now would not care were this article to be deleted provided the references are maintained in other articles elsewhere?--Amerique dialectics 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ha ? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. It's the Muslim editors who wanted this to move out of the Al Aqsa Mosque article [91]. None of us will have any problem is this content stayed there - but obviously then that information will be deleted from there as well. It's a question of censoring, we don't care where the information will be as long as it appears on the original article as well, but the motive behind some might be different as apparent and the information will be deleted regardless where it is for specfic agenda I think. Amoruso 13:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- but surely Tew the whole point of this is that (at least regarding the article's creator, in this instance) good faith is demostrably lacking, per my above on User:Amoruso and others noting the 'pov fork'. but contra Amer this instance seems to be a blatant attempt on the part of Amoruso to confuse a very important issue "to do with Israel or Judasim". again, everyone pls check [90] → bsnowball 11:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete as per User:Almaqdisi --Palestine48 11:19, 10 November 2006
- Keep per Hummus. Here we go again. If this one fails, will there be another one next week?--Mantanmoreland 16:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep there has hardly been enough time to attempt any improvement to the article since last week's AfD, and so the reasoning from my last comment is still valid. TewfikTalk 20:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Hummus Hut 8.5 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I don't see a vote by Hummus, what does per Hummus mean? Are you keeping based on the content of the article, or the amount of time that has passed since the last AfD? Please clarify. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- What he meant is keep per Humus Sapiens who voted above. Amoruso 10:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see a vote by Hummus, what does per Hummus mean? Are you keeping based on the content of the article, or the amount of time that has passed since the last AfD? Please clarify. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per my previous vote. This article merits no encyclopedic value, and does nothing but confuse the reader by citing non-authoritative sources! travel websites? you gotta be kidding me! --khello 22:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Third holiest site in Islam is Aqsa and I can easily back this up using reliable sources. --Aminz 22:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. While it is understandable that others might want to label other sites as being "the holiest" for various reasons... there's really only one group qualified to define what is "the third holiest" anything (meaning in that group's religion) and that is Muslims. This article is just a POV fork. There is only one true third holiest site for Muslims. Funny enough I just got done watching the documentary The Root of All Evil? by Richard Dawkins where he (being an atheist) discussed Islam's "third holiest site" as being the Al-Aqsa Mosque. (→Netscott) 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Almaqdisi's excellent research. --BostonMA talk 12:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think the only argument that can derived of that is to rename the article, not delete it. Amoruso 13:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- To what? Media confusion regarding the Holy sites of Islam? I guess I could support such an article. --BostonMA talk 13:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps to Holiest Muslim sites. AS LONG as the third holiest site discussion is kept in Al Aqsa Mosque article. I'm afraid POV pushers will try to remove it. Btw, this "media confusion" allegation is false. Article based on sources like United Nations Development Programme and scholars of universities and more [92], it has nothing to do with "media confusion". 13:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- You and I apparently learned different things from this excellent research. --BostonMA talk 13:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, you obviously didn't notice that that post is based on a wrong premise which is that the article is based on media sources, which it isn't. It's based on scholary, UN evidence and so on. Amoruso 13:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Looking at the references show that you are WRONG. The media and travel websites references are indeed majority of them . --- ابراهيم 13:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Some are based on media, some based on universities, other researches, some on combined sources . Amoruso 13:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- The article references:
- Asian Timse Online (with a broken link)
- Heritage Photo Agency
- Modarresi News
- KavkazCenter.com
- Zaman Newspaper
- The Guardian
- CNN
- Associated Press
- BBC
- ShiaNews
- IslamicTourism
- Public Broacasting Service
- And I'm not even half way through
- Yet you state that that post is based on a wrong premise which is that the article is based on media sources, which it isn't.. Yeah, right. --BostonMA talk 13:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Looking at the references show that you are WRONG. The media and travel websites references are indeed majority of them . --- ابراهيم 13:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, you obviously didn't notice that that post is based on a wrong premise which is that the article is based on media sources, which it isn't. It's based on scholary, UN evidence and so on. Amoruso 13:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- You and I apparently learned different things from this excellent research. --BostonMA talk 13:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps to Holiest Muslim sites. AS LONG as the third holiest site discussion is kept in Al Aqsa Mosque article. I'm afraid POV pushers will try to remove it. Btw, this "media confusion" allegation is false. Article based on sources like United Nations Development Programme and scholars of universities and more [92], it has nothing to do with "media confusion". 13:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- To what? Media confusion regarding the Holy sites of Islam? I guess I could support such an article. --BostonMA talk 13:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It's also based on and referenced by :
-
-
-
-
-
- The University of Calgary's Applied History Research Group
- Public Broadcasting Service
- United Nations Development Programme,
- University of Tennessee
- Not the Univesity of Tennessee, but creditted to Prof. George Bowen of the School of Planning at the U of T. [93]. The website appears to not be a direct quote from Prof Bowen, but an unpublished (by Wikistandards) review of Prof. Bowen's work on the environmental and cultural assets of Cyprus. by Patrick S. Obrien. (read the last paragraph). Not an expert qualified to report on the holiest sites of Islam. --BostonMA talk 14:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why not ? Says who ? Amoruso 15:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not the Univesity of Tennessee, but creditted to Prof. George Bowen of the School of Planning at the U of T. [93]. The website appears to not be a direct quote from Prof Bowen, but an unpublished (by Wikistandards) review of Prof. Bowen's work on the environmental and cultural assets of Cyprus. by Patrick S. Obrien. (read the last paragraph). Not an expert qualified to report on the holiest sites of Islam. --BostonMA talk 14:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Freedom of Religion and Belief: a World Report, authors Kevin Boyle and Juliet Sheen
- African Union (AU) Experts’ Meeting on a Strategic Geopolitic Vision of Afro-Arab Relations Centre for Advanced Study of African Societies
- International Security Assistance Force
- Yet you state that the supposed "media confusion" is the supposed excuse for wanting to DELETE the entire article. Yeah, right. Amoruso 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Comment: As written above, I'd like to point people to the history of the article. [94]. This information was moved into a different article because of MUSLIM CONCERNS of UNDUE WEIGHT ON Al Aqsa Mosque article. Nothing to do with WP:POV forks or with anything suggested here. Amoruso 13:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if thoroughly improved This my-site-is-holier-than-yours-business has been around forever. Sectarian dispute, aided by scholarly opinion even led to minor warfare around this issue. (Alevites can tell you...) There still isn't consensus (not even about the 2nd holiest site, btw.), only a strong majority opinion. If, and only if, somebody would morph the article into a disinterested overview of the history of "holy-site ranking" disputes, the article has merit. As it is, it's just sectarian mud-slinging. Also, the name "Third holiest site in Islam" is obviously awkward, to say the least. But the concept has merit. Azate
- 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 14:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is not only a violation of WP:AGF, it's an extreme personal attack disgusting and revolting. Amoruso 15:09, 11 November 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.
- 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 was delete. W.marsh 00:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Power of Israel in the United States
Non-notable book. Publisher seems to be a vanity press - note that they don't have their own domain name but are a subpage of a print on demand company. [117] The book is in only 3 of 10,000+ libraries in worldcat [118] The only sources I see that have written about this book are blogs, indymedia, conspiracy theory and the usual David Duke/jewwatch.org/vanguardnewsnetwork crap GabrielF 16:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom, non-notable vanity press conspiracy book. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete The book in question is already detailed in the main James Petrus page. Its serves no purpose. Time for de-dupe. scope_creep 18:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- James Petras' page does not explain on this book --Nielswik(talk) 02:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ScottM 18:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign in first time)
- Delete per nom. Crockspot 19:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Wikipedia is also not a Barnes and Nobles, we do not need articles on every book ever made. --Nuclear
Zer019:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC) - Delete, per nom, totally non-notable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all of above. Also we already have an article on Israel lobby in the United States and this seems to be just another book on the same theory. I don't think we need an article on every book ever published. 6SJ7 21:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, and assign the creator of the article some public service (under control of the Lobby, of course) ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Article may be recreated if and when the book meets Wikipedian standards. gidonb 23:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete I was really looking forward to reading an article about this subject and am very annoyed it turns out to be an advert for a book. --Mike 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This isn't aplace to get cheap exposure. Robovski 01:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable, 88,200 google hits, reviewed by Amazon, in bookmaster, etc. (see the google search result). You may not find it ind WOrldCat yet because it is new --Nielswik(talk) 02:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete spamvertisement. Tbeatty 02:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - not every single book out there is notable. Khoikhoi 04:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Isarig 07:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, can always recreate it later if it gains notability.--Rosicrucian 07:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete obviously. Amoruso 09:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- keep unless we're going to completely hand Wikipedia over to the Israeli censors. --75.17.183.177 09:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- The above vote is by a user banned from WP for disruption, personal atatcks and antisemitism. Isarig 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone adds significantly more information such as a summary and criticisms and/or praise from notable sources (preferably print sources and by experts in the field). --GHcool 09:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I tried to, but some people censored it (see the article's history) --Nielswik(talk) 10:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Your last version did not contain any useful information, but was loaded with POV and of questionable grammar. Removing that is not censorship...--Stephan Schulz 16:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, does not seem notable, and the current article is useless. --Stephan Schulz 16:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The ZOG strikes again .. he he he. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn book, TewfikTalk 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Merge book does not seem to require its own page, merge with James Petras. --Deodar 03:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Notable Book by Notable Author. Comparable to State of Denial by Bob Woodward. The bad grammar by Malay (?) editor could of have been easily copy-edited. His original contribution is what counts. Espabila, Favila, que viene el Oso! Will 07:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Newer Edit. O.K. Now the article has a little depth. Please contribute and copy edit rather than delete. Collobarate in lieu of revert. Espabila, Favila, que viene el Oso! Will 08:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- How exactly is a book by a barely-notable author that has gotten no press attention and no notable reviews comparable with the latest bestseller from Bob Woodward? GabrielF 17:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't confuse quality of argument with quantity. Or Numerosity with novelity. The notability comes from the book's unique divergence from conventional wisdom. The notability is shown by the interest it has attracted in this "delete" forum. Of course, it will get deleted. But decency and an accommodation to fellow editors would call for a redirect. Espabila, Favila, que viene el Oso! Will 04:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm fine with a redirect. But I don't buy your point that something is notable because of its "unique divergence from conventional wisdom". By that criterion, the crankier a thesis is, the more notable it becomes...--Stephan Schulz 08:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't confuse quality of argument with quantity. Or Numerosity with novelity. The notability comes from the book's unique divergence from conventional wisdom. The notability is shown by the interest it has attracted in this "delete" forum. Of course, it will get deleted. But decency and an accommodation to fellow editors would call for a redirect. Espabila, Favila, que viene el Oso! Will 04:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- How exactly is a book by a barely-notable author that has gotten no press attention and no notable reviews comparable with the latest bestseller from Bob Woodward? GabrielF 17:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment as Will has expanded the article, i guess this article shouldn't be deleted. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 18:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. I don't like it either, but it's got a Sales Rank of 18,361. Pretty good. - crz crztalk 23:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I voted merge but the lack of libraries stocking the book may have to do with it being released less than 2 months ago (mid-September 2006) more than anything else. Your test would have more validity if you conducted it 5 years or more after the release of the book -- if still no libraries had it, then it clearly fell with a thud. It's sales rank this evening was 6,49 BTW. --Deodar 02:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think the worldcat test may be okay in this case. I'm guessing that most library sales happen pretty soon after a book is released. Note that State of Denial was released four days after this book and its in almost 1000 libraries in worldcat. [119] 14:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- There are a few different classes of books. Those from established notable authors are bought right away -- Woodward would fit in this category -- the another set are bought based on patron request -- which takes a while longer. I recently was surprised that my library had 6 books by Uri Davis written over the period of 1978-2003 even though they were relatively fringe, especially the earlier ones. --Deodar 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think the worldcat test may be okay in this case. I'm guessing that most library sales happen pretty soon after a book is released. Note that State of Denial was released four days after this book and its in almost 1000 libraries in worldcat. [119] 14:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- I voted merge but the lack of libraries stocking the book may have to do with it being released less than 2 months ago (mid-September 2006) more than anything else. Your test would have more validity if you conducted it 5 years or more after the release of the book -- if still no libraries had it, then it clearly fell with a thud. It's sales rank this evening was 6,49 BTW. --Deodar 02:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Redirect to James Petras. Nothing left to merge, really, and redirects are cheap. I doesn't seem to merit an article in its own right, but woudl be useful to redirect to the author to catch folks googling for the book. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nomination. Jayjg (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
Morton DevonshireYo 05:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC) - Delete per nom. Brimba 09:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Beit Or 21:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Probably a lost cause, but Redirect to James Petras. As Youngamerican said above, redirects are cheap. - Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 13 November 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.
- 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 was between refactoring and sockpuppetry/copyvio accusations (which I cannot confirm) I can find no consensus to delete. ~ trialsanderrors 02:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ihsan Khan
Not a nopteable nor a big position to have a separate article for. He dosen't meets the WP:Bio. A M. Khan 19:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- Speedy Dlete/Copvio The article be speedy deleted, as there are thousands of Nazims in Pakistan. The article seems to be a copy from a web-site too, that is from a forum and the main link given in that froum article is giving an error.
- Speedy Delete as per nomination scope_creep 20:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. This is by all means a bad faith nomination. A Google result [129] provides countless interesting stories about this person who won a Jack Pot of 32 Million Dollars in a US lottery. A Nazim of a District in Pakistan is like a Mayor in USA. The person having unique history (which provides him an international fame) certainly qualifies as per WP:BIO. The article must remain for the sake of him winning the largest amount of Lottery in US history. I have also added some links to his article and which should suffice. --Marwatt 00:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong DeleteComment: Nazim is to different from Mayor. In Pakistan we previously use to have Mayors but that system was replaced as that was British System. The country rapidly started changing the British system. This was one of few steps. Beside this, also let me add, that Nazim system was brought after Commissionerate system was lifted from Pakistan, that use to show the pre-independence time. So government of Pakistan changed it. By the way there are atleast Twenty Five 25 Nazims in each district of Pakistan, there are nearby 200 districts in Pakistan. There are thousand of people who wins the lottery everyday at every place of the world. If we started entering the Nazims of Pakistan and lottery people, then I think Wikipedians will have nothing to do except of hiring people to upload data for whole of them.A M. Khan 07:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Lets talk about the merits of this article. Isn't Ihsan Khan a District Nazim which means that he is the boss of all the other town Nazims. Yes he is. Furthermore, how many people have won US Lottery worth 32 Million Dollars, none and especially a poor cab driver from Pakistan. Certainly passes the Google test. It’s a Cinderella story and strongly deserves a place in Wikipedia. You are once again pushing a POV on personal enmity. And by the way please insert your vote only once and avoid adding more votes down the page.--Marwatt 14:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's verifiable with sources and the subject has successfully entered elected politics. Being mayor of a town isn't normally notable just by itself, but this guy has already had international media coverage (and I guess a lot more in non-English media) so he meets WP:BIO even if he stops now. Mereda 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with mereda, it is verifiable and a district nazim is considerably more influential than a a simple mayor.--Zak 14:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I know a person who is not a notable to anyone in his street, but his name comes in google, whenever you search, as he use to work on net and also in a private organization. I also know a bureaucrat who is too famous in bureaucracy of Pakistan and atleast 2-3 pages of goole comes for him, so it means should we make an article for such people too? Nazim has nothing to do with any bureaucrat, he is even under the DCO {District Chief Officer), the name itself shows that all powers are with DCO not with Nazims. I don't want to go further, except making a comment that you for your un-healthy claim brought up many sock-puppets here. Aiditior, Zakksez a.k.a Zak are your sock puppets. I hope the administration will be taking action against you soon and blocking of you will be made alongwith this article soon. A M. Khan 18:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Closing Editor/Administrator should discount the votes of all sock puppets such as User:Begu Khel, User:Mina Khel, and User:Krishan Raj. --Marwatt 19:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- Mereda 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep- Seems to be notable. But is there any Pakistani wikipedians to comment on this Afd...? If so we have to consider there words with more weightage. Asian Language Newspaper reports are not available in Google search. So we cannot blindly believe and rely on google hits when the AfD biography of an Asian is taken into consideration. News reports from Urdu or Hindi newspapers of 5 lakh copies are not available in google. But report from English Newspapers with mere 1000 copies are also available in google.Ha...Ha...Ha... Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 15:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment. I am a Pakistani Wikipedian and I know the person from his philanthropy from the local press as well. He is an elected official and almost everyone in the Pashtun belt knows about his dream winning of a US lottery of 32 million. He has a status of a celebrity as far as I know. --Marwatt 20:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- High Comments. I am also a Pakistani Wikipedian, I never knew the person before reading this article. He is infamous person. I asked many people in his area, who were my college mates and some work with me in Mobilink Peshawar. All of them replied that yes they just know him for Nizamat (Holding status of Nazim) not for his lottery. One of them confirmed yes he is won alottery in US, others replied that they don't knbow about a lottery but came to know that he is having a property in US also some fule-stations and minor things. He was a sheep-man (who is servant of elders of Villages to make sheeps roaming daily inmountains) before he went to US. Now he won due to using money, his case is still pending in election commission tribunal. Even he is freed of charges, Nazim is nothing, nothing special as mentioned by my fellows earlier. An appropriate action for deletion of this artilce musttake place now. The article is nothing more then a debatless for some voters who are just voting withut any specefic reason other then being involved in personalising. Begu Khel 21:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete If we start adding Nazim on Wikipedia, we will for sure be adding thousands of pages daily. According Local Government Ordinance of Pakistan a Nazim is having powers of Grade (BPS-20) officer. Nazim have no right to interfare in divisional or provincial political affairs even. There is a restriction of Matriculation for Nazim, while for Pakistan Civil Services one need to be passing the competetive Central Superior Services! examination. For Members of Pronvial Assemblies, Naional Assemblies and Senate, in Pakistan, one need to contest an election and candidates for such elections need to be holder of Bchelors Degree. This shows the real difference that how less is Nazim delaing with. They (Nazims) are just restricted to use some powers, previously those were with prestigious Assistant or Deputy Commissioners. Recently, in one of the debate here on Wikipedia, concluded that Grade-20 officer is not at all a prominent.Eventhoug, there are such officers in 20-Scale, that they are looking there department as Incharge of it for whole Pakistan. Inshort, I will surely, ask for Speedy Deletion of this article. It also seems to be copy from a baseless-link. Begu Khel 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC) What if it is my 9th edit? Are you all OK? You must know that I am eligible to vote, my case is different if compared with others. Begu Khel 20:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Votes by users with very few edits
-
- Comment. There is absolutely no relevance whatsoever between what you User:Begu Khel are saying and what the contents of this article are. Wouldn't you agree that he (1) passes the Google test by a huge margin (2) has a fairy tale life (3) has an international fame, and lastly (4) is after all an elected Nazim of a District. Please dont confuse both a government servant and an elected figure. --Marwatt 17:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete as per nomination and as per voted by majority. Krishan Raj 08:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Probable sockpuppet: This user account started on Nov 12 with a first edit to another user's talk page. --Mereda 17:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC). Also note that this is user's 2nd edit. utcursch | talk 13:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Absolutely fulfills the criteria of WP:BIO. 100% bad faith nomination. --Mina Khel 17:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Another sockpuppet: This SPA started on Nov 12. --Mereda 17:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC). Also note that this is user's 3rd edit. utcursch | talk 13:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. I dont understand as to why this article was nominated in the first place. The person has a status of celebrity. I totally agree with mereda and zak. The article deserves to be in wikipedia. --Aiditor 18:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Comment: I have to say this looks like a sockpuppet too as a user account that's rarely in use. Sorry if I've got that wrong! --Mereda 17:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sock Puppet Verified. Just check the User: Aiditor's user-page. Then see the history, in one date you will notice so many changes and the starter of that page is no-one else then User:Marwatt. The administration must take action against his sock-puppetry deed. Thanks USer:MeredaA M. Khan 19:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy and Strong DleteThe article should be delete now. There are majority of fake votes casted for the favour of """Keep""". I think it's too much to know about a conspiracy which is to make this article keep. Eventhough, I think theer is no strong debate made nor defended in favour of this article. The debate that is in favour of deletion is a very tough. Requesting here to delete the article on true norms. Begu Khel 20:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)- User's second comment; see above. Postdlf 20:17, 13 November 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.
