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 defaulting to Keep, there is significant disagreement over whether this article should be kept or deleted with the main disagreement being over whether it meets the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mecca Time[edit]

I created this article early today thinking it was a significant development in the political sense. A little later I found that only a BBC report and a Gulf Times article are the sources of this information - all other sources have picked the BBC article, nothing else. The participants in this conference in question are virtually unknown, and I couldn't find any background information on this idea or controversy. I had a discussion with Erechtheus, who had first raised the point, and Johnbod, whose feedback I had requested. Yet, I feel the best thing to do is gain a wider community opinion, since I don't think I could satisfy their points nor my unease regarding the notability policy. Vishnava (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep published in multiple reliable sources. Royalbroil 14:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It has stirred up some internet debate since the BBC's report. Controversial statements about Islam do have a place Wikipedia whether its Rowan William's dicussing Sharia law or the BBC reporting on a conference which has probably raised eyebrows in the scientific community. Just reading our own article on Earth's magnetic field the participants have really conjectured something at the conference. -- BpEps - t@lk 15:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe one shouldn't create articles that they intend to nominate for deletion later. If anything, this article is more of an illustration that there are idiots who work at BBC and at Fox News. The BBC story begins "Muslim scientists and clerics have called for the adoption of Mecca time...", from the same school of journalism that starts with "Experts believe that..."; implying, of course, that the view of a few people at a conference represents the view of all scientists who happen to be Muslim. FOX reports that GMT "could be replaced by Mecca time if a group of Muslim leaders get their way" (quick, call Homeland Security!!!). It's your basic Skittles story. It might be worth a mention in the article about Greenwich Mean Time, or about bad journalism, but the whole point of the reporting is to stir up ill feeling about those "crazy" Muslims. Mandsford (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford, I did not create this article with an intention to nominate for deletion later. I am simply being mindful that I may have made a mistake, and I'm asking for the community to help me find the solution. Thanks, Vishnava (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how does the publication of this story mean that there are idiots at BBC and Fox News? Is it because they're "Islamophobes"?--WaltCip (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don’t know if it should be deleted, but I can’t make much sense of it.

* What is the "true center of the Earth"? Unless you think the Earth is a flat surface this makes no sense.

* For is meant by "Muslim scientists"? Is it merely scientist whom happen to be Muslims or is it scientist whom take their primary inspiration from the Koran.

* "Mecca was in perfect alignment with the magnetic north" The magnetic north, besides constantly moving around, is currently somewhere in north-eastern Canada – nowhere near any longitude running through Mecca. In fact it is closer to Greenwich than Mecca. Rune X2 (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is whether this concept of "Mecca Time" is a legitimate and notable one, or is it just a casual act of anti-West propaganda not worth noting. I agree that it makes no scientific sense, but that's not the point of having the article. Thanks Vishnava (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I would call it "anti-West propaganda" so much as one of many true-believer types of things on the order of the (perhaps folkloric) slogan "If the English language was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me." (Is that a line in Inherit the Wind?) There are plenty of Islamic scholars out there with quirky fatwas and such and the West often misinterprets this as monolithic hierarchical doctrine as in Christian sects such as Catholicism. --Dhartung | Talk 04:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Edit and Merge/Delete with Prime Meridian. Julesn84 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep note that my own personal opinion is to keep the article. I only nominated this article to get the community's view on the notability policy issue. Vishnava (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't a request for comment be a better venue for that? —Quasirandom (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• My recent experience with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Nepal is the reason why I chose AfD. The arguments were fairly similar; plus, if the verdict is that the subject is non-notable, then obviously deletion will take place. Vishnava (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. My intent in raising the notability issue was to put article readers on notice that it's not clear at this point whether or not this is something that's important enough to have an article. I don't think we'll really know for around 6 months or so, really. I think there is technically not quite enough significant coverage to be notable but that it's close enough to the borderline that it doesn't hurt to take a wait and see approach for a while. ETA: I often vote delete in cases like these. The thing I think makes this a weak keep is that the subjects anti-majoritarian position makes it almost the poster child for under-inclusion of such concepts in the project. Erechtheus (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a few quick articles by notable news sources are not enough. You get this much with the average murder, etc. Would change mind if more sources. gren グレン 22:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article would just be an absolute springboard for WP:NOT#POV, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and WP:COI.--WaltCip (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, I think Vishnava did a good job of making the article informative rather than POV-ish. « D. Trebbien (talk) 14:28 2008 April 27 (UTC)

• Keep per Erechtheus and others. It is better on it's own than merged with Prime Meridian (or Paris Meridian), though it should be added to the list of candidates there, with a quick note. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is also a Mecca watch article that is closely related to this one. Oore (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, its the same thing. The editor must not have realized that a prior article existed. Vishnava (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the mecca watch is a device unveiled at the same conference. Oore (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mecca watch could well fall under CRYSTAL, at the moment, in that it is a purely conceptual. -- BpEps - t@lk 07:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. At this point I don't feel this proves it's more than unnotable news. --Dhartung | Talk 04:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete It was my understanding that specific, doctrinal requirements for time-keeping were lunar, not earthly. Even scientific efforts exist to push for a more precise lunar calendar (scroll down). It is entirely possible that I'm either wrong or missing the point. It is also possible that my being correct about the timing/calendar business doesn't impact the notability of an effort to change GMT to "Mecca Time". Protonk (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing the lunar calender with Salat times which is always dependant on the position of the sun. - BpEps - t@lk 07:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely, 100% possible.  :~( Protonk (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, press coverage indicates notability. Everyking (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, BBC has not removed it so Wikipedia should keep it unless it becomes clear (not apparently clear) that this report is not worth discussion or at least a point in history. This might not be important in terms of its scientific significance but somehow people do look at wikipedia for all kind of things to dicuss from most dumb to most scientific. Unless we are not sure about it we cannot catagorize it or even merge it with GMT. I think we have to wait and if some evidence comes in line with this everybody should try to link to it so people can unfold the whole story. If this there had been a conference there must be a call for conference papers and names of such scientists and BBC should have these soruces. It not something like somebody left a paper in the BBC bin outside their office with this report on it and they thought to publish it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farrukhsubhani (talk • contribs) 13:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^{Off Topic?}

• Question over status of Mecca Watch article what happens to the Mecca watch article over the decision of the AfD? Should it be included in this AfD? The subject and news is exactly the same; the author must not have realized that an article already existed. If the decision here is to keep this article, is it appropriate to redirect the page to Mecca Time? Vishnava (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the content of Mecca watch to Mecca Time and created a redirect. Its notability is directly related to that of Mecca Time and the aforementioned news report. (EhJJ)^TALK 18:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mecca watch fails everything, I haven't Speedied it because it was brought up here (OT -- I did prod it and have reverted the directs on the grounds of CRYSTAL. It has absolutely no nobility because it doesn't exist yet. Unless you can prove its real existence then it is a dream for now. Whether or not the Mecca watch is the worlds biggest seller in 6 months, is not a concern at the moment. It can easily be re-created if deleted-- END OT. --BpEps - t@lk 19:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^{end off topic}

• Yes, merging was best, for now. I notice the article has now had a useful wikilink to one of the participants added. This seems to boost notability somewhat, as he seems a very well-known cleric. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Over the years people have advocated dozens of places to replace Greenwich, ranging from the Great Pyramid of Giza to El Hierro to Paris; see Prime Meridian#History for a partial list. These other attempts aren't notable by themselves, and "Mecca time" isn't either. "Mecca time" is appropriate for a news article about some publicity hounds; it is not notable for an encyclopedia. Eubulides (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, we do have an article on the Paris Meridian, which was widely used for centuries by many people, not just the French. We could do with more on the more significant others. The detail-less, and mostly reference-free, list now at "Prime Meridian" is pretty poor, and a wholly inadequate treatment of the subject. A case of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST ? Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Paris Meridian was used by millions of people for centuries and was the basis of legal time for a large fraction of the earth's surface. Maybe in a couple of hundred years the Mecca meridian will reach that level of notability. Maybe. For now, it's just a publicity stunt, and it's nowhere near as notable as the Paris meridian. Eubulides (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Glad to see you know more on the subject than your comment above ("replace" etc) suggested. It is not however necessary for the Mecca idea to be as notable as the Paris Meridian to be sufficiently notable to have an article. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the point of the article is of how scientifically notable the concept is or will be - right now its more of a political-religious subject, significant from that viewpoint. Vishnava (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with Eubulides --Shengyi (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a crackpot theory that just amazingly found its way to the BBC, the references are non-scientific and the so-called theory is completely insane. - Yurigerhard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.106.73 (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a theory is crackpot does not mean that it has no place on Wikipedia. I think the real issue here is WP:UNDUE; it appears to have only been covered in this one conference. « D. Trebbien (talk) 14:25 2008 April 27 (UTC)

• Delete (for now). I do not think that notability is an issue here because there were two, well-respected news sources that wrote about this. Instead, I think the issue here is WP:UNDUE, and here is my thinking: if Mecca Time is a term that was conceived (and only used) during this conference of Muslim scholars, then there would be no possibility of expanding the article; its content is currently locked with the conference. Therefore, I suggest waiting until the term becomes more widely used to have a separate article about the subject.

(As a sidenote, I would be interested to know whether there is more coverage in Arabic, which I cannot read, than English.) « D. Trebbien (talk) 15:00 2008 April 25 (UTC)

copied from an earlier post to my talk « D. Trebbien (talk) 14:25 2008 April 27 (UTC)

• Delete I think this qualifies under WP:CSD#G7 Yahel Guhan 23:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am not requesting deletion of this article, so WP:CSD#G7 does not apply - I support keeping this article. I have already explained my rationale for starting this AfD. Vishnava (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2008 (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.