Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saad Ibn Aqeel Shrine


 * 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. A possible merge can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Saad Ibn Aqeel Shrine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not seeing any historical notability. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If sources that are not about the destruction of this shrine cannot be found then this should be merged to Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL rather than deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of coverage and I don't think anyone would honestly suggest that we would consider deleting an article on an historic building like this in Western Europe or North America, where it would undoubtedly be listed as cultural heritage and would thus meet the criteria of WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - it may be short, but meets WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All the sources discuss its destruction, most (all?) only as a one line mention (if that). The coverage is wholly trivial (or non existent).Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL. Sources are not about the shrine but rather the simple reporting it was destroyed. All sources just copy the same AP photo without any description of the building itself - none even specifically attest to the article's use of "historic". Necrothesp's claim of this building being "cultural heritage" are not supported, rather than it being a routine mosque that ISIS didn't like. All sources group it with other destroyed buildings and none would be "significant coverage...directly and in detail" that GNG requires. Reywas92Talk 22:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you saying it wasn't an historic building then? It certainly appears to have been. It is described as such in several sources. Just because some countries are more careless about their cultural heritage than others does not make their historic buildings any less significant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What is being said is that no one had produced one source disusing this site on its own merits, that until its destruction it was no more notable then [], which also does not have an article that I am aware of.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is covered by WP:SYSTEMIC. If this building was in North America or Western Europe nobody would seriously dream of deleting the article. You're surely not comparing an historic shrine which would be heritage listed by any country with a proper listing system with a glorified modern shed which wouldn't have a hope of being heritage listed anywhere? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No it is not, there is no evidence this is particularly notable. Here is another church I canon find an article for [], and another []. I can find more in one English town that do not have articles.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You do know that Wikipedia is a work in progress? Not having an article now does not preclude one being written in the future. Prittlewell Church is a Grade I-listed building, so quite clearly qualifies for an article under WP:GEOFEAT, even though one has not yet been written. St John's Southend is not listed and dates from the 1840s, so does not compare to these older buildings. Just being a church does not make a building notable (and I don't believe I said it did). Being an historic church does. Same for Islamic buildings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So, the fact is we do not, thus your argument that this is an example of systematic bias is in valid. its not. There is no evidence this would have been regarded as a notable religious building in this country.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

*Merge/Redirect. The most info here is from major news sites and weekly reports here. Other information was from an Islamic State video on YouTube,the video is deleted,so let’s just move this to the Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL page. I realised something too, all this discussion was because of my mistake of putting the word “historical”. Islameditor47 (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was rather misled in my earlier comment by the word "shrine", which to my British perspective conjured up an image of a statue with possibly a small chapel (or whatever the Islamic equivalent is) attached. I now see that this was a full-scale historic mosque, so should be kept. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, This RS cultural heritage report  reports on this shrine "Site Date:Unknown, most likely modern." on page 54, with a couple more photos. There is simply no evidence that this is a "historic" mosque rather than a very routine one. The building itself has no notability, rather the destruction of it along with numerous other sites (this report, which lists a few dozen other demolished sites, is only an update for the week of March 2, 2015) is what is notable and is best covered in the Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL article. The shrine was not notable before its destruction, regardless of systemic bias, nor does it appear to be afterward either, with a lack of sources focusing on this building rather than many as cultural heritage collectively. Reywas92Talk 21:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about whether or not it is genuinely old or not. As we have zero information about it (a two sentance stub on its destruction). So in fact it is no more notable then a glorified modern shed with a gold dome stuck on top.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the split viewpoint as regards Keep/Merge (with a suggestion of draftify) -
 *  Move to Draft I think this article should just be moved to draft, the article can be further improved before review.Islameditor47 (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC) * Move to Draft  This article should be moved to draft so that the editor can improve it more. Deleting the page is just like erasing the editor's hard work.Islameditor47 (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect Advocates of keeping have not been able to identify any sources for the mosque's notability or historic character. Coverage of the mosque itself fails WP:ROUTINE. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 01:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge I see that a Syrian Heritage report says that both this shrine and the Sheikh Jawad Al-Sadiq Mosque are of unknown date, "most likely modern". So it was primarily of religious importance, rather than historic, and while there might be some coverage of it in eg Syrian newspapers, there is unlikely to be as much as if it were several centuries old. So it would be appropriate to merge this into the article Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, there is mention of shrine, clearly!Islameditor47 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

*Merge Deleting this is deleting the editor's hard work. If this page is deleted I can move it to another page because I have copied the source text. Islameditor47 (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage is at least as significant as much as it is needed to keep a separate article. Excelse (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. While proving the non-existence of an event or an attribute is logically impossible, proving its existence should be trivially simple. (E.g. I cannot logically prove I have never been inside a cinema but I can prove I have, through, for example, a CCTV photo of me inside a cinema.) Editors who support Keeping the contested article claim "notability" and "coverage" but do not seem to be able to provide specifics. One can surmise that none exist. -The Gnome (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You have now voted for both Merge and Draftify (and redirect), which is it?Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I vote for draft now, I won't vote again. Islameditor47 (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2019 (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.