Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victory mosque

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. Courcelles 07:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victory mosque

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research. Xyz or die (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11, attack page and possibly G3, blatant misinformation (The Mosque of Rome is a "victory mosque"? Pull the other one, it's got bells on). No reliable sources, extreme unbalanced POV, unverifiable. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur the sources given are not impartial and this article seems more like an anti-islamic rant than a source of information. -Sensemaker
Keep but rewrite to conform to WP:NPOV. A quick Google confirms that "victory mosque" is a very common piece of political rhetoric about which readers would be understandably curious. Ray^Talk 15:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ban creator User:Amandajm for spreading biased unsourced propaganda. --Data Cube (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. No attested use before this current year. Bearian (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article seems to exist to advance a strongly held point of view on a current controversy. It tries to create a facade of respectability by listing other mosques through history but doesn't show that this term or anything similar was ever used in connection with those mosques prior to the current controversy. No attempt whatsoever is made to provide a balance of views. The Christian Science Monitor reference looks impressive only at first glance - it is an advocacy opinion piece by someone who is spreading this term, and is therefore not an independent, secondary, reliable source. The second reference doesn't even mention the "victory mosque" and is instead an article about the overall controversy. Both are worthless as references.Cullen328 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the most charitable thing anyone could say about this is that it's completely unsourced original research, but I'm going to skip charity and call it Islamophobic fearmongering. (However, I would like to point out to Data Cube that Amandajm did not create the article and is actually the only editor to add sourced information. Granted, it's about the use of the neologism by racist idiots, but unlike the article creator User:Pewterschmidt Industries, Amandajm is not actually asserting that their claims are true.) Roscelese (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:Amandajm is the one who's responsible for writing "Victory mosques include (...) the Baitul Futuh Mosque in Morden, London, United Kingdom and the Mosque of Rome, Italy." And User:Amandajm does not assert that the sentence is false. Indeed, no encyclopedia article has ever said "The above sentence is true," because that's not necessary. A statement like that ("the above is false") is only necessary if something is not true. Therefore User:Amandajm promotes racist and xenophobic ideologies and should be banned. --Juno the pregnant little girl (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right. I didn't look properly. (Wrt "the above is false," it's the difference between saying "Park51 is a 'victory mosque'" and "Racist X says Park51 is a 'victory mosque'" - both contain the phrase "Park51 is a 'victory mosque,'" but only the first indicates that the editor believes that to be true. But again, I misread the edit and didn't realize it was Amandajm who had added that content.) Roscelese (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEO and Comment Data Cube and Juno are likely socks of article creator Pewterschmidt Industries. SPI is here. --JaGa^talk 04:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up I think this has the potential to be cleaned up, since the name of at least a couple of these mosques actually means "Victory". Personally I've never heard the term before (and missed most of the Park51 stuff), but it seems that an NPOV article could be written on this topic. I've added a couple of citations. --99of9 (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2010 (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.