Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third holiest site in Islam (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Nacon kantari 20:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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 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)


 * 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)
 * *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. Yank sox  12:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fun or not, it's a keep. Amoruso 12:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Amoruso Please do not write more than one bold keeps (even in your FUN comments). You have already voted once. --- ابراهيم 12:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't imply I voted again. I can write in bold what I wish. Amoruso 12:12, 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 &  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)
 * See User:Zora comment in last AFD. The link she gave is broken and points to the wrong article. Please ask her to give the right link after reading her comments. --- ابراهيم 11:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete as per nom.  TruthSpreader Talk 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 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 person concerned (Amoruso) has been warned. Note that this issue does not belong here, take it up at your talk pages. --Ezeu 11:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Amoruso 11:50, 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”
 * 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.
 * 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? 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 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 . 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 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)


 * 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 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.

Second one: the cousin of the Prophet Mohammed, is Muslim Shiites second holiest site after Mecca in Saudi Arabia. 

Third one: Three holiest places in Islam: the Arabian Peninsula first, Iraq second, and Jerusalem, which is held by the Israelis, third. 

Fourth one: I’ll tell you how to embolden an enemy – invade the second-holiest land of Islam

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. 

Sixth:  Iraq is the second holiest land in Islam

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

Eight: The invasion of Iraq was a gift to bin Laden, the second holiest land in Islam

Nine: His writing about the assault in Islam's second-holiest shrine is lyrical

Ten: Iraq is smack in the middle of the Islamic world and the second holiest place in Islam

Eleven: as all point to the unholy occupation of Islam’s second holiest site, The Dome of the Rock

Twelve: could ever manage to tear down the Dome of the Rock (Islam's second holiest site

Thirteen: In the background is the Dome of Rock, second holiest site in Islam.(Episcopal News Service photo by James Solheim) 

Fourteen: Netanyahu's next step was approving the opening of a tunnel under Islam's second holiest site, Al-Aqsa Mosque

Fifteen: The French attitude to the conquest of the second holiest state in Islam is in part because their country is a functional democracy

Sixteen: all of his history and why Jerusalem is the second holiest site for Muslims Seventeen: Iraq, which, after all, is the second holiest place in Islam

Eighteen: Following the burning in 1969 of the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, the second holiest shrine of Islam

Nineteen: Iraq is the second holiest land in Islam; a place where Islam had been long suppressed by Saddam

Twenty:  rebuild the Temple. The fact that the second holiest Mosque in Islam presently sits on the site is

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

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

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

Twenty four: Forget that there are U.S. troops in the second holiest country in Islam

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

Twenty six: 45 and married women over 35 were allowed to enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, Islam’s. second holiest site

Twenty Seven: Iraq is second in his list of priorities because it is the second holiest country in Islam

Twenty eight: the Al-Aqsa Masjid in Eastern Jerusalem: the second holiest Masjid in Islam

Twenty nine: to occupy Iraq which is the second holiest place in Islam

Thirty: Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam

Thirty one: to rebuild Solomon's Temple (starting with knocking down the second holiest shrine in Islam!)

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

Thirty three: American tanks were near the second holiest shrine in Islam

Thirty four: eventually the Al-Aqsa mosque, the second holiest site in all Islam

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. 

Thirty six: Zionists are lusting to see the Dome of the Rock (Islam's second holiest shrine) blown up

Thirty seven: Bukhara was considered the second holiest city next to Mecca

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

Forty: The United States is currently in Iraq, (which is considered the second holiest place in Islam)

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. 

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. 

Forty four: second holiest place of the Moslem faith, the Dome of the Rock

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

Forty six: American-led invasion of Islam’s second-holiest

Forty seven: Bam was Islam’s second holiest

Forty eight: (the temple-mount, called Moriah) has also been Islam's second holiest sight (after Mecca)

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). 

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

Fifty one: Israel's intended rape of the second holiest place of Islam, Jerusalem's al- Haram-al-Sharif

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. 

Fifty three: The Dome of the Rock, a fairly unimportant shrine for centuries, was elevated to the position of second holiest shrine in Islam

Fifty four: the second holiest site to Islam, the Dome of the Rock, is placed squarely in the yard of Solomon’s original temple

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"

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. 

Fifty seven: Jewish terrorists attack second holiest site in Islam

Fifty eight:  the Dome of the Rock- the second holiest site, after the black rock in Mecca

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. 

Sixty: the centre of the whole, the sacred rock in. the mosque of ‘Omar, the second holiest site in all. Islam,

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.  Tewfik Talk 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 → 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 . 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)


 * 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.  Tewfik Talk 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)


 * 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, 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)

It's also based on and referenced by :
 * The University of Calgary's Applied History Research Group
 * Broken link --BostonMA talk 14:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * not before, and it's irrelevant . Amoruso 14:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Public Broadcasting Service
 * A media service --BostonMA talk 14:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not exactly actually, it's non commercial and based on universities etc, read the article. Amoruso 14:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * United Nations Development Programme,
 * A broken link to an online newsletter sponsored by UNDP --BostonMA talk 14:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * the links weren't broken before, and it's UNDP like I said, not understanding this edit. Amoruso 14:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * University of Tennessee
 * Not the Univesity of Tennessee, but creditted to Prof. George Bowen of the School of Planning at the U of T. . 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)
 * 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. . 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.