Talk:2011 Al-Nurayn Mosque attack

Copyright concerns
Following up on this ANI report of copyright concerns, I popped in on this article at random. This is the first passage I checked: I do not know how extensive problems may be or if there are other problems in the article, but given this passage and the evident history, additional evaluation is needed as well as rewriting in these passages and any others that may similarly follow so closely on their sources. The article is being blanked to prevent display of copyright problems pending investigation. If a WP:CCI is opened, particularly, it may be deleted after a week if alternative text is not proposed in the temporary space now linked from the article's face. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rewrite now on Talk:Al-Nurayn Mosque/Temp.  Night w   12:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 29 July 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. To better reflect the scope of the article (the attack). (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Al-Nurayn Mosque → 2011 Al-Nurayn Mosque attack – This article seems either mislabelled, or possible it was created as one thing and became another. As it stands, 90% of the material is on the 2011 arson attack, not the mosque itself. Even if there are sources that would support an article on the mosque, it would seem to make sense to rename and rescope this particular page (and the material it currently contains) to solely and clearly reflect the attack from start to finish, and, if someone wants recreate a new article on the mosque in the future (and they can find sufficient sourcing to create a body of content on the building), they can do so at the redirect. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support – I don't see why it shouldn't be renamed. 92% of the article is about the 2011 attack. Kakebiten (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Against It should be kept under its current name, to moved is stupid. Catfurball (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)