Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masjid e Tooba

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Masjid e Tooba
Is this notable? Has anybody heard of it? Does it merely need wikifying? Donovan Ravenhull 11:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep it does appear to be a major building in Karachi, the largest city in Pakistan. Some of us have made a start at improving the article. PatGallacher 11:49, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, suggest withdrawl of nomination. Please at least Google your subject before nominating for deletion.  This is the Pakistani rough equivalent of the Dom Cathedral in Cologne, Germany.  -- Un  focused  14:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * STOP the attacks on the motives of VfD nominations, or I will start deleting them as deletion of personal attacks. Discuss the merits of the article, not the person who made the nomination.  Having said that, "Masjid e Tooba" only gets 53 Google hits, so the nomination itself is perfectly valid.  Having said that, no vote.  RickK 19:58, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly what about my statement was an attack? Please inform me, as I have absolutely no clue about what you intend to delete.  -- Un  focused  20:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, have a look at the statement I posted on the nominator's talk page and tell me if you think that's an attack, too. -- Un  focused  20:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, clearly notable. - Mustafaa 20:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, the "said to be the largest single-dome" thing is repeated a lot on the web, but is substantiated nowhere, which probably means it isn't. Also: What RickK said. --W(t) 21:30, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Revolución 23:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is notable. Pakistani topics are typically underrepresented on Google, so I can hardly blame Ravenhull for questioning the notability of this, though VfD probably isn't the first place to ask. -- Jonel 03:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Additional commentary - I don't see the personal attack here. I especially think that Unfocused's comments at User talk:Ravenhull were appropriate and helpful. -- Jonel 03:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non notable building. Megan1967 03:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: Unverifiable. I agree with RickK, and I'll join him in deleting articles if more people use VfD to attack those who list articles for deletion.  This is supposed to be deliberative, and that means it's a place for establishing the questionable cases.  Do not be intolerant.  Geogre 03:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears to me that you've misunderstood what RickK was threatening. RickK was objecting to ME suggesting that people Google their nominations before nominating them, and threatening to remove my comments attached to my vote, not the article itself.  Although I think RickK and I disagree about whether my suggestion of a quick Google before nomination is a personal attack worthy or removal on sight or not, I respect that he remained completely objective about leaving the article itself out of the disagreement.   Unilateral removal of the article itself is not a valid option.  "Unverifiable" in your comments suggests you haven't seen the photos of the place linked in the article itself, nor Googled it yourself to see that it is a major tourist attraction in Karachi.  It is clearly verifiable.  Notability?  I can't decide that for you, but to me, it clearly is.      Un  focused  04:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not Google ahead and have not Googled now. What is unverifiable is "tallest."  What we can't verify are the claims within the article that give the notability.  I have no doubt it's a real place, and I have nothing against monuments being in Wikipedia, but we have to resist the tallest, biggest, oldest, busiest, emptiest, etc. for every town in the world.  That's not our function, but rather a Guiness Book and Baedeker function.  I agree with people using their keep votes to chide nominators.  I've seen it over and over again.  People go through saying, not just "keep," but "keep! you obviously know nothing about this" (suggesting that only experts may determine if they've learned about a topic from the article or not?) or "keep! deletionist trolls" (common in the school debates).  Given that we've recently had an RfC launched because of someone nominating to VfD, I think it's important to clamp down hard here.  Debate the article, not the person, as the person is generally not part of the matter.  Also note that I personally always advocate voting on the article, not the topic.  Because this is a Wiki, it's as easy to delete an article and wait for a knowledgeable person to recreate it as it is to preserve a misinforming thing and wait for a knowledgeable person to see it, not get disgusted with us, and fix it.  That's why I would be willing to say delete to the whole article for the lack of significance in what is stated. Geogre 15:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If the problem is that you dispute the claim of tallest, then why not just change the article to "some claim it is the tallest" rather than vote to delete an article on a major, well known structure?
 * Also, we did not have a Request for Comments launched because of someone nominating VfD, we had an RfC launched because someone responded in a hostile manner to four different users making a good faith effort to communicate a concern to him. (Blanking four separate polite attempts to communicate without response, then proceeding to continue the action of concern.)  The fact that it was VfD nominations that we wanted to talk about is merely a conincidental fact.  The request was "Hey, this person won't communicate with us... is there something wrong here?" and is the first step in dispute resolution when someone rebuffs multiple good faith efforts to communicate.  -- Un  focused  16:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete question mark over its claim to notability. JamesBurns 03:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and fuck WP:RPA. Grue 14:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete 53 Google hits = non notable. JamesBurns 11:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, NN. Radiant_* 11:27, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, a notable stucture and a case where the google test fails miserably. Kappa 20:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, though I dont know the mosque, it is in the middle of the area of Karachi which I seem to recall has a particularly large number of people of importance as residents; its not precisely, therefore, a common or garden place of worship. Note Though I dont feel strongly about this particular example, I strongly caution against applying the Google test where it might be inapplicable (a) because of poor internet penetration (b) because of language differences - we dont know whats on the urdu pages and (c) where there are several alternate spellings of proper nouns. As an example, I googled Gulzari Lal Nanda, my preferred spelling for a former Indian PM, and got a mere 400 results. So be warned! Hornplease 05:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly a notable building. Also sometimes spelled Masjid e Tuba (at least in my guide book, though not much presence on Google - you can find more hits under Tooba Mosque, however, which all goes to show that there are some things you can't trust Google for). &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  00:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.