Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multifaith spaces

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 keep. Renaming is an option here. Tone 11:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multifaith spaces[edit]

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

Article contains no sources or references about the overall topic.
The sole article cited does not actually use the phrase "multifaith spaces".
Searching Google News Archive results in zero hits.
Between Google Book and Google Scholar searches, there are a total of five hits. None of them appear to discuss the phrase in any depth.
The article itself isn't sure of what "multifaith spaces" means—is it a single space shared by multiple faiths? Or multiple spaces, each dedicated to a different faith, but all under the same roof?
It's an {{orphan}}—while an editor (User:Sole Soul) removed that tag, he said on the talk page that he only did so because he couldn't find any articles to link to this one.
The last sentence in the article makes two different unrelated claims, neither of which is sourced and both of which could cause offense.
Article was prod'd (by me) and then contested by User:Sole Soul, with the statement that it's notable. The only reason given to support notability, though, was that entirely different words could be found on Google Books and Scholar searches. While I agree that many many other words and phrases exist and have their own notability, I do not see how that fact implies anything about the notability of this particular phrase/article—especially as the words searched on included neither "multifaith" nor "paces".
Article contains weasel words such as "typical," "sometimes," and "occasionally," leading it to be so fuzzy that it doesn't describe any one thing at all. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A significant concept--the searching is a little complicated as there can be a variety of phrases used for them. And, just trying the simple variations of "multi faith space" , "multifaith space" and "multi faith spaces" in addition to the prebuilt search above, I found [1], several more G Books results [2],[3], [4], & more in GScholar [5], [6], [7] (the Googles do not properly truncate plurals in multi word phrases.) Otherproblems can be fixed by a little rewriting. We are judging whether the topic is suitable, not critiquing the article. ` DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search for "multi faith prayer room" in Google news and in Google books shows that the topic is notable. Dori argued in the talk page that "multi faith prayer space" is different from "multi faith prayer room", I disagree. The other issues that Dori raised do not justify a deletion. If an article is about Bob, I will certainly search for Robert. Sole Soul (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Diff}}s, please?
What I said—and which you did not refute—was that your search would find a sentence like, "PR rep Faith Johnson said the new model offered plenty of room, and when combined with a multi-function printer, left their competition without a prayer"—which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Note that that's a single sentence; so long as a book had the words "multi", "faith", "prayer" and "room" anywhere in its text, you counted it as a hit. If chapter 1 mentions a "multi-purpose room" and chapter 8 contains the words "faith" and "prayer," can you honestly say that that book is a source? And if so, why didn't you add it as a reference?
And in case you didn't know (which appears to be the case): searching for "multi" and "faith" as separate terms will not find "multifaith"—which is why I asked you multiple times what it was you thought you were searching for. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I made a stupid mistake. Here is the new links [8] [9] [10] [11]. Thank you for the information. I tried multifaith and it returned much fewer results, I have a habit of saying only what is enough to make my point. Sole Soul (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And when you don't say enough to make your point clear (to me, at least), I'll ask. And as an example, are your last two examples supposed to be the same? I would have done your searches as: [12], [13], [14], and [15], myself. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And sometimes saying too much makes your point less clear. Sole Soul (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to Multifaith space - this topic is absolutely worth an article. They are appearing in hospitals and Universities here in Australia, and I expect that they will become de rigueur. So keep the article, but move it to the singular. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic itself is notable enough, and the sources identified by DGG would be sufficient to make this more informative and verifiable. Mandsford (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - something I didn't mention above, as it's not about the article, per se: y'all should be aware that the word multifaith, as used elsewhere in WP, has a different meaning entirely. When you say that the phrase "multifaith room" or "multifaith space" is notable, to which version of "multifaith" are you referring? And so far as I can tell, none of the terms religious pluralism, interfaith, ecumenism, interreligious, or syncretism fit, either.
What's the correct term for "the building with the sign out front that says Sunday am: Christian services; Saturday am: Jewish services; Sat eve: teen disco; Sun eve: poetry slam; M-F day: Childcare; Tue eve: Knitting club; Thurs eve: Chess club"—community centre, maybe? According to one of these sources (from DGG's search above), the correct term may simply be auditorium. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as can be shown by the sources that DGG provided, the "multi faith worship space" concept is important and should be covered. With that said, the title is bad (should be moved to Multifaith Space, and the article could use quite a bit of work to bring it up to the sort of standards that we expect. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Reckon that we 'uns can figure this'n out, seein' as how the problem is that it's not about the article per se, but the title of the article. Mandsford (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - My perception is that both the title of the article and the content are issues. If the consensus is to (1) change the name of the article, and (2) change the entire content so that it matches the meaning of multifaith as used elsewhere (both on WP and in DGG's links), there's a name for that—it's called "deletion." I've got no problems with creating an entirely new article with a different title and different content, but that's not the same thing as !voting to keep this article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:04, 11 January 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.