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 Redirect to Hirak, Syria. Orlady (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mosque al-Herak

Mosque al-Herak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An individual building that is not notable. The fact it is damaged does not make it notable. JetBlast (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an historic building. It's not the fact that it's been damaged that makes it notable, but the fact that it's an historic mosque, as stated in the referenced document. And yes, we do create articles for historic buildings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the guideline that says a building being historic makes it notable for a Wikipedia article? If there isn't one, then the fact that it's historic doesn't mean anything. A subjective opinion on historic merit does not nullify the need for reliable sources per the WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 16:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Actually the document says nothing about it being a historic building, the entire mention of the mosque is "Mosque al-Herak in the Dara’a region 19." It is not one of the world heritage sites mentioned, nor is it one of the tentative world heritage sites. All we can deduce from that source is that there is a mosque in Dara'a called Mosque al-Herak, and this information is sourced from a youtube video. Even the article we're discussing doesn't say that it is a "historic mosque" anywhere.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must be missing the fact that this is not sourced from a Youtube video, but actually from a document compiled by the Global Heritage Fund, a reputable organisation. The second word of its title gives a little clue as to the status of the buildings mentioned. Since the list in which this and the other mosques nominated for deletion is headed: "Shelling damage has been reported at three World Heritage Sites, a Tentative World Heritage Site, and several national heritage sites," one can assume that this is a Syrian national heritage site. Since when does a building have to be a World Heritage Site to qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at reference number 19 of that document (the citation for this mosque being damaged) it is a youtube video. That a document uses youtube as a source for anything should make you question its reliability. Relying on "clues" and assumptions to determine something is original research. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, rubbish. The Youtube video is merely being used as an illustration and using a document issued by a reputable organisation as sourcing is most certainly not OR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only source for this article has a trivial mention of the Mosque, which is sourced to a youtube video (hardly a reliable source). Having searched for other sources all I can find are a few news articles with brief mentions that a mosque in Al-Herak has been damaged, and it is impossible to state with complete certainty that it is the one being mentioned in this article without relying on shaky assumptions. The mosque lacks significant coverage in any independent and reliable sources and is therefore not notable. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A brief trivial mention in a single source does not give enough weight to warrant an article. The article fails WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 16:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The damage to what appears to be this mosque is already mentioned, with slightly more detail, in the existing article on Hirak, Syria. As, so far as I can see, this article was created to justify including the mosque in List of heritage damaged during Syrian Civil War, I would suggest that should this article be deleted, the link on the relevant entry on that list should be redirected to the article on the town. PWilkinson (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mosque_al-Herak
No tags for this post.