Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of holy cities


 * 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. Proto :: ►  14:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

List of holy cities
As I repeatedly pointed out on talk, there is no definition of Holy city. As a result, people add to the list all sort of trash (mostly capitals and sites of monasteries or other local shrines) they consider important and then revert war about it. Some especially clueful editors even arrange the sites according to their relative importance.

Some examples may be helpful. As a practicing Russian Orthodox Christian, I don't regard Moscow as a holy city, rather as an abode of corruption. Neither do I regard Sergiev Posad as a holy city. Holy is the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, not a town that has grown nearby centuries later. The same applies to Jasna Góra, which is a monastery, not a city. Kiev is not a holy city either, because the East Slavic Christianity was born in Korsun. And how do you call Mount Athos a holy city if it is not a city at all? I'm not competent to review other religions, but I'm doubtful that Samarkand is a holy city for Muslims "because it was Timur's capital".

I pointed out all these inaccuracies months ago and received no feedback as to why such unsourced list is useful for Wikipedia and its readers. In its current form, the list is simply unmaintainable. -- Ghirla -трёп-  18:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; it would be hard to come up with a list that's more inherently POV-ridden than this one, short of a "List of Songs That Suck." RGTraynor 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The problem starts with the lead: "This is a list of cities that various groups regard as holy. Cities may be either considered holy in themselves (as Vatican City for the Christian), important sites for worship or study (swamithoppe for Ayyavazhi), or the high seat of particular religions (Moscow for Russian Orthodox, Mecca for the Muslim)." I tried to add Jerusalem for Jews as a city holy in itself but was reverted. Basically, i doubt that Vatican City is holy in itself but it's exactly the high seat of particular religion.... and Mecca is not a high seat but IS a holy city in itself. Amoruso 18:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a pretty important article to have as a canonical list of particularly holy sites among religions. We should specify, within the article, however, whether this is a holy site (ie: Jerusalem) or just a seat of power (ie: The Vatican). Valley2city 18:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you read what I say above? Either your provide a clear, well-sourced definition of the holy city, or this entry will always remain a pretty disgraceful pile of original research, where every passerby editor would be keen to include the capital of his own state, as a quite symbolic city for him or her personally. -- Ghirla -трёп-  23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, good point. You know, Plymouth, Massachusetts, is the town in which I feel the best and most at peace.  It is therefore a holy city, and deserves inclusion on the list.  Maybe I should go over to the article and add it right now.  RGTraynor 14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You probably meant that Plymouth is lulungomeena. People often confuse the terms :-) `'mikkanarxi 00:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Holy Cities" quote/unquote have been a fixture of human civilization. The places themselves have been the bone of contention for a lot of people. Some people especially atheists and anti-religious have obvious problems with the term (they are justifiably correct since they are atheists/anti-religion) but the concept itself of holy city is of historical importance and should be presented in this encyclopedia by force of its influence in human history. Dr mindbender 21:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, but this doesn't discuss the concept. It's an indiscriminate list of cities, many of which are not in fact held sacred by much of anyone.  RGTraynor 21:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ...many of which are not cities at all. -- Ghirla -трёп-  23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. In my experience (and I have been watching the list for some time, without ever editing it), the page is just a vehicle for endless POV warring and original research. It is neither informative nor encyclopaedic in that it does not present our readers with objective imformation and facts. In the absence of a rigidly defined criterion, the only thing it highlights is the POV of the latest editor. -- Ghirla -трёп-  23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but cleanup. I'd love to see sources for a lot of this, especially mentions of miracles having been performed in the Mormon cities.  User:Zoe|(talk) 00:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Yo dude, User:Ghirlandajo, chill out! lol. You should be prepared to accept such a nebulous article by virtue of it being non-scientific and therefore not subject to scientific criteria of objectivity. It sucks really, but that's what you have to live with when you are dealing with things/concepts that can't be reduced to precise mathematical terms and proved by logical rigor. hahaha. Looking back, I would have appreciated this article when I was back in high school coz it would have saved me a lot of pain... oh well. Dr mindbender 00:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Telling Ghirlandajo to chill out doesn't really change the fact that his points are valid, particularly in light of his assertion that he has been watching the article for a while and nothing has changed. It seems to me that it's not going to, because the nature of the article is flawed.--Dmz5 02:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No attempt made to create a criteria for inclusion- terms of ref extremely nebulous. Edit history and talk page show no sign of much interest from editors in rectifying this problem. As it stands various types of potential 'holy city' are being conflated (and the overlap between them is a real problem with this list):
 * Place with a high concentration of places of worship e.g. Rome
 * The central administration of religous bodies e.g. the Vatican
 * Places that have featured significantly in holy books or the history of a religion e.g. Bethlehem
 * Places that are intrinsically regarded as fundamental to religious observance e.g. Mecca
 * In its present form the list is a mess in terms of format and focus for OR and POV pushing. -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 11:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom unless significantly improved during the AfD period Alex Bakharev 12:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: Hello, gentlemen. I think I see the point of Ghirlandiao. I also saw the previous posts and there were indeed a lot of edit wars. I do think that some of the entries are more of pilgrimage sites than de facto holy cities. But I do have to point out that the definition I entered is the dictionary definition. Therefore we should work within that definition. The definition is broad such that "cities" may actually be cities enclosing sacred sites so there is a lot of freedom to work with as far as the standard definition is concerned. IMHO, to cite a few examples: the only "traditionally accepted and referred to" as holy cities are: for Judaism = Jerusalem; Christianity = Jerusalem, Rome; Islam = Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem; ancient Greek religion = Olympia (as the most significant but there are more to list for the ancient religions as they are more or less well-defined) - therefore the rest could be disregarded, esp. the Protestant list since Protestants themselves will probably balk at the list under Protestantism. We cannot overly be restrictive of the criteria, Shinto religion is one such example.

I think we should be careful to admit that the term "holy city" may not necessarily equate to the boundaries of the actual cities containing them. Case in point: Rome. The boundary of the "holy city" of Rome during the Republic did not enclose the entire course of the city of Rome. Not all of the seven hills of Rome were within the sacred precinct.

Let me conclude that although the list may not strictly follow the limits to everyones satisfaction, we could remove some entries in the list and put it under another topic: "List of pilgrimage sites" since the topic "Holy cities" is severely more limited in scope. But I still think the topic is of legitimate interest and historical importance (needs more of a trim than an expansion). Dr mindbender 22:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's inevitable that wikipedia will be reporting on opinions.  The key in those circumstances is to cite who says that city X is a holy city for group Y.  This article needs specific citations for specific claims.  That means it needs work, not that it needs to be deleted.  How many times have you turned on the news to see violence in a holy site for sect Y?  This article has the potential to be a very encyclopedic, worthwhile addition if it can sort its informed cited opinions from editor opinions.  --Aranae 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per User:WJBscribe. bogdan 22:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherently POV-ridden. Like, Simbirsk is a holy city for communists. `'mikkanarxi 00:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: HELP OUT IN DEFINITION. I added an invisible criterion in the definition. I don't know if you agree. I added that in the strictest sense, it should only be listed as a holy city if there are habitual references to it as a holy city. If this strict criterion is followed, the following examples would get in: Jerusalem, Rome, Mecca, Medina (as far as western religions are concerned). As per example of WJBscribe, Bethlehem, although of religious importance to Christians, have not been traditionally assigned the name "holy city" - so that's out of the picture. Same goes for Vatican - I haven't encountered it being referred to as a holy city; Holy City however is synonymous with Rome as is widely used by the media and generally accepted synonym. It becomes an important site of pilgrimage though, but not a holy city. Nazareth too, Geneva, Wittenberg. If atheists had a "holy city" (I'm laughing at the irony) it would undoubtably be Moscow - the communists would be pissing their pants though because of the contradiction, lol - throw in Pyongyang - what the hell. What do you guys think? Should we clean up the list and put the others in List of pilgrimage sites? Your call. Dr mindbender 06:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Inherently POV and unmaintainable. In order to keep the list in any semblance of order one would have to define criteria for inclusion, which would amount to OR.  Also, it would have to account for holy cities of all religions, which itself would get out of hand given the number or world religions.  Particularly problematic is the shear number of cities that could be considered holy.  As an example of this problem, Central Asia has long been home to a rather interesting form of Islam that blends in more mystical views and they have a huge number of important 'saints' whose graves are considered quite holy and can be found in a rather large number of towns across nations like Uzbekistan.  This same problem applies in regions all across the world and across religions.  I see no way to develop an objective, non-OR set of criteria that would allow for a fair, equitable, well-defined and maintainable list of holy cities. --The Way 06:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I think you're a bit too pessimistic. Nevertheless, I have a feeling that, assuming this thing gets deleted, somebody will resurrect it back again, if not a Christian, most probably a Hindu or a student of ancient religions. The topic is inherently significant in its own right. Although a majority here might want it removed, its intrinsic value as a legitimate point of study, no matter how murky, will always get attention. The imprecision of the topic is inherent since it is a subject of the humanities and not the sciences. But just because you think the Mona Lisa is overrated doesn't mean it can't be discussed to death. Isn't this fun! LMAO. Hey, I disagree with some of the songs in MTV's Most Awesomely Bad Songs, but hey, it's what makes us human. We like to classify things and smack silly anybody who disagrees. ROFLMAO. Anyway, I'm feeling generous. LET'S BLOW THIS BABY OUT OF THE WATER! In that classic exhortation of centuries gone by, let us say to the list of cities in this page: "Kill them all, God will know his own." mwahahahaha ROFLMAO Dr mindbender 07:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The topic might be worth pursuing (although since it's just an indiscriminate list, I disagree), but that's within the scope of a scholarly journal or forum, not of an online encyclopedia. RGTraynor 15:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but after a signficant cleanup which would in particular involve coming up with some reasonably NPOV inclusion and maintenance criteria. I do see the point of User:Ghirlandajo's objections, and they are valid; hence, the cleanup request. IgorSF 09:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you sign your comment? My objections have been stated months ago and no attempt at improvement has been made. This persuades me that either nobody cares or the list may not be maintained so as to conform to the standards of this (or any other) encyclopaedia. -- Ghirla -трёп-  08:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the criteria are no more nebulous than for other forms of holiness--nobody will mistake it for a list of what is holy rather than a list of what is considered holy by some major tradition. DGG 06:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the basis for your persuasion that this is the list "of what is considered holy by some major tradition"? So far there is only the list of what is considered holy by Dr mindbender and a couple of passerby editors. -- Ghirla -трёп-  08:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment supporting keep I took a more careful look, and I see that it has a great many minor cultural traditions as well. It is easy to verify the ones that are included, but it is obviously not possible to comprehensively verify what is not included.  How were you proposing that a comprensive list could be made? The obvious way for WP is to have interested editors adding and checking, which is true of all WP lists that do not have a specific basis, such as List of kings of X.  Since the weakest part seems the Christian portions, which is also the part I know something about,  I will try to add a few. Based on your home page, you've written a great many relevant articles and could do the same.DGG 18:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Regarding the nominator's repeatedly pointed out on talk, I see 3 separate edits spread out over 3 days in one section. I'm not so sure I'd call that repeatedly. Granted, no-one replied to that talk item. However, there are people who do obviously care about the article's presence and content ... or there would not be an AfD discussion like this one with different, heartfelt opinions. Let's let the process work, and see what definitions we can identify, if any, for Holy City. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 11:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep-Even though I see the valid points as to the lack of definition of "holy city", etc., I do see some significant usefulness in this page. Like all Wikipedia pages, it should be edited accordingly.  The accepted definition of a holy city would be a place that served as a center of a faith group or as a place where a major event transpired.  Rome is clearly a Christian Holy City for a variety of reasons.  Akka in Israel is clearly a holy city for Baha'is.  The list allows people to see a consolidated list of the world's religiously revered cities.  Before we go about deleting this, I think we should insert that it is required that the reason for a holy city's listing be included.  For example, "Shiraz, Iran--birthplace of the Bab."  Any that lack this citation should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.180.48.25 (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Comment - Thbis article needs serious work. Ghirla is correct to point out that there is no definition of a "holy city"; thus, we see Australian Aboriginal cultic sites (DEFINITELY not "cities" by any definition.) I'm not sure that this merits deletion of the whole article. I think there has to be some discussion of what a "holy city" or a "holy site" is, and then adherence to that standard, rather than willy-nilly compiling every place where anyone has ever prayed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - One second pls. I beg your pardon, but there IS a definition. Two citations in fact; one from Merriam-Webster and another from Dictionary.com. I put it there specifically because of the complaint of having no definition. These are standard recognized definitions. I just don't understand why you fail to recognize or accept it. I'm itching to get rid of some of the names in the list, however, in the interest of this debate - I am just waiting for the outcome of its deletion or otherwise the removal of the notice. Dr mindbender 00:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Petition accepted, despatch this article into the next world. - Francis Tyers · 14:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, Clean-up and Protect - Max 5 cities per religion/Church Johnbod 01:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This vote seems to leave the article status quo. There have been multiple proposals of cleanup, all unanswered, and there are seldom more than five cities mentioned per "church" (sect?) The proposal of protection is in contradicion with core aims of this project: our articles should be open for everyone to edit, not just admins. Protection is always only a short-term solution. -- Ghirla -трёп-  09:39, 18 December 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.