Talk:Multifaith space

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 January 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by DoriSmith (talk · contribs) on 5 January 2010 with the comment:
No basis given for notability—it's just a dictionary definition. The sole reference is to a book; it's being used to cite a single multi-faith space, but no mention as to why that one is particularly important. The image doesn't add anything, either. {{Orphan}} & {{expand}} tags were removed by an editor w/o explanation.

The last sentence claims that the existence of these spaces have led to fights that would not have otherwise occurred--but has no references for that statement.

It was contested by Sole Soul (talk · contribs) on January 6, 2010 with the comment:
Notability: See [1] [2].

Proposed deletion

I added the {{prod}} tag to this article on January 5, 2010, which User:Sole Soul removed a few hours later.

A few notes about the {{prod}} and its removal:

Sole Soul didn't add the {{oldprodfull}} template here, which is a non-optional part of contesting a prod. I've now done so, with our respective rationales.
Sole Soul didn't notify me with a {{deprod}} tag, which, while optional, is considered polite.
Sole Soul edited the article to remove the prod, but did not improve the article to address any of its issues.
Sole Soul's rationale for contesting the prod consists of a link to a Google news search and a link to a Google book search. Neither search, though, was for the term Multifaith spaces, so I'm not sure what either contributes.
Sole Soul's only contribution on this topic since then has been to create five redirects to this article: Multifaith prayer room, Multi-faith prayer room, Multi-faith space, Multifaith space, and Multifaith prayer space — the purpose of which are unclear.
Also possibly worth noting: Sole Soul is the same editor who removed the {{Orphan}} & {{expand}} tags with no rationale or edit summary.

Without any improvements to the article, I think it's time to take it to AFD... Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I've done something wrong, I'm not familiar with this process, but I should have read the policy carefully that says that I consider notifying the user and adding the tag to the talk page.

Sole Soul is the same editor who added the {{Orphan}} & {{expand}} tags.
Sole Soul removed the orphan tag after Sole Soul tried and failed to de-orphan the page.
Sole Soul addressed the issue that Sole Soul think warrant an uncontroversial deletion, which is notability of the subject. Sole Soul (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:

Yes, you added the {{orphan}} and {{expand}} tags, and I'm fine with that. It's their removal that I find questionable. If a page has zero articles linking to it (as as is the case here) then it's an orphan. If you can't find any articles that should link to it, there are a number of things you can do instead—but none of those things include removing the tag. The same goes for {{expand}}.
One of us is confused about your rationale for de-prodding. I said that your "rationale for contesting the prod consists of a link to a Google news search and a link to a Google book search. Neither search, though, was for the term Multifaith spaces, so I'm not sure what either contributes." to which you replied "I addressed the issue that I think warrant an uncontroversial deletion, which is notability of the subject."
No, you did not. If you decide to create an article on your dog "Buddy," you can't claim that your dog is notable because Google searchs for Benji dog and Toto dog get lots of hits. Not because a large number of Google hits aren't sufficient to prove notability (although that is the case), but because your dog isn't Benji or Toto.
Once again: you didn't search for "Multifaith spaces", you searched for something else, and consequently, the results of those searches are irrelevant.

If you think the article can be sufficiently improved to be worth keeping, improve it. Some things that would have to be fixed:

According to Wikipedia, the term Multifaith implies those of different religions worshipping together, not "in the same room at different times" or "in different but nearby rooms."
The article 'Sacralising' Sacred Space in Public Institutions: A Case Study of the Prayer Space at the Millennium Dome does not appear to actually be about "Multifaith spaces"—as the Dome had a separate area for Muslims.
The included picture is a lousy example of a "Multifaith space" as the statue shown would be offensive to Muslims, Jews, and even many Christians. The carving of hands on the opposite wall would also be inappropriate.
The article's last sentence makes two different unrelated claims, neither of which is sourced and both of which could cause offense.

Right now, there are currently zero Google news hits for "Multifaith spaces". There are four book hits, and looking at Google Scholar gives us one more. I don't see that these brief mentions get us sufficient material to pass WP:N. But if you think there's sufficient verifiable reliable sources out there to make a non-orphaned page with referenced text, go for it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I contested the deletion, I ignored the issues you raised that I think does not warrant a prod (actually, not even AFD nomination), and addressed the one issue that I think does. Whether you agree with me that I addressed the issue or not, our mere disagreement makes this article unsuitable for a proposed deletion. Sole Soul (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case as this is clearly a contested prod, it should go to Afd for further discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Sole Soul (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree also (which is why I mentioned it in the first place). I was hoping that Sole Soul would explain his rationale to me first and that we could come to some consensus, but it doesn't appear that that's likely to happen. Anyhow, it's now at WP:Articles for deletion/Multifaith spaces, so feel free to add your thoughts there. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that Sole Soul would explain his rationale to me

That was not the impression I got. You seemed eager to prove to other users that Sole Soul is WRONG, which I was happy to give to you. I edit Wikipedia for fun, not because I have to improve an article. Sole Soul (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

The original definition: spaces shared by several different faiths for prayer and worship found in public places.
The current definition: a location where interested people of differing religious beliefs jointly attend multifaith worship services.

A few notes:

I think "public places" are keywords
If these prayers are not jointly held we cannot call it multifaith space?
The refs cited in the AFD discussion match the first definition and contain the words "multi faith spaces" see [3]
The refs cited for the second definition do not talk about a place, they rather talk about the multifaith prayers regardless of where these prayers are held. May be we should create an article about multifaith prayers.
I agree with this sentence: "The space may or may not be a dedicated place of worship."

Sole Soul (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts, just off the top of my head in no particular order or relevance:

I think this article's usage of the term "multifaith" should match what's at multifaith. I'm not saying that the latter article is correct or complete (I find it confusing and full of opinion, myself), just that the two should match. The answer may well be that the latter also needs changing.
Neither of them completely matches wikt:multifaith, but they're not too far apart.
I'm working on the premise that a multifaith space is a location where multifaith services are held, which sounds circular enough to me that I don't think it needs specific referencing. That is, WP wouldn't need a reference to say that a book selling space is a location where books are sold. If you think the article should say that a multifaith space isn't a place where multifaith services are held, that would (imo) need a source.
Multi-faith service is currently a redirect to Interfaith (not crazy about that…).
If we can both agree that a space doesn't have to solely be a a multifaith space to count, what happens in that space at other times doesn't have to be covered here, right?
Some articles that refer to multifaith (or multi-faith) worship:

Kirking of the Parliament (is a multi-faith service held to coincide with the opening of the Scottish Parliament)
Presidential Inauguration (Ireland)#Religion (instead of separate denominational ceremonies a single ecumenical multi-faith service was held in the Cathedral of the faith of the President-elect)
Ray Hnatyshyn#Post viceregal career and death (Hnatyshyn was commemorated on 23 December 2002 at Ottawa's Christ Church Cathedral, in a multi-faith ceremony)
Jean Charles de Menezes#The Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign (a vigil in Parliament Square and a multifaith memorial service at Westminster Cathedral were held)

I'm not saying I have the one and only one right and true answer, just that I strongly believe in consistency. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Multifaith space. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]