Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mosques in the United States


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

List of mosques in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a address book or list of external and red links. The Banner talk 10:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Otherwise the lists of churches and temples, such as List_of_Catholic_churches_in_the_United_States and List of Buddhist temples will need deletion too. More broadly, when the goal is encyclopedic, lists that relate to a covered subject like this list relates to Islam are wholly apropos. ô ¿ ô  13:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Both mentioned list seem to cover only notable temples/churches. They are not an indiscriminate list of addresses and websites of mosques without own article. The Banner talk 13:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep And cleanup. Article meets inclusion criteria for a list and is part of a bigger scheme of list of mosques by country (see the navigation templates at the foot of the article). I don't think there's any need to have all the external links included in the tables, or linking to each state name 100+ times, but these issues can be addressed on the talkpage.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 16:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete   There is nothing special about a mosque.  Any Muslim can open one.  There is no authority (like the Roman Catholic Church for instance) that says one is more important than any other one.  Sad to say, the reason an American mosque would become notable (that is of course covered by secondary sources) is if it was involved in some kind of controversy, either involvement of some members in extremism or it being a target of local bigotry.  A list of all mosques would be against "WP is not a directory."  A list of "notable mosques" would give a false picture of Muslim Americans. The list is not needed anyway since a category can take care of readers' needs. BayShrimp (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note A list of big, landmark mosques would also give a false picture since most Muslims worship in "non-notable" places.BayShrimp (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not relevant here (nor is "false picture" an accurate characterization regardless, unless the list incorrectly states "these are all the mosques in the U.S."). It is standard for Wikipedia to have a "list of X" limited to notable entries (only those that merit articles) where not every X that exists is notable. Doesn't matter whether it's a list of shopping malls, shoe manufacturers, firefighters, or mosques. postdlf (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I kind of view the purpose of an encyclopedia as making people more knowledgeable and informed. A list of notable mosques would inform people who were looking for that information (although it might still be a directory.) But a person wanting to know more about Muslim life in America would end up disinformed if he makes the natural assumption that these notable mosques are somehow representative of Muslim places of worship, especially since in most cases the notability will be accidental depending on what the press happens to report. BayShrimp (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it suffices to say, as a measure of how far that is from policy, guidelines, or consensus, that I've never seen anyone even make that argument here before, that we shouldn't have a list of notable X because someone might draw incorrect inferences from it about the Xs that aren't notable. We list articles we have on various subjects, and so have plenty of lists limited to notable things. Period. See WP:LISTPURP, see the first two sentences of WP:NOTDIR, see WP:CSC. I suppose we should also delete Category:Mosques in the United States for the same reason? Hell, our poor confused reader need not even see a list or category grouping; simply googling "mosque" + "united states" + "wikipedia" could call up listings of just these notable mosques, so perhaps we shouldn't have any such articles at all. Lest this hypothetical person make the "natural" assumption that the mosques we choose to write articles about "are somehow representative" of all American mosques. postdlf (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * From WP:Notable: "When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic." From the article Encyclopedia:  "Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come." Quoting Diderot.  I agree that it is possible to put together a list based on the 3 qualifications: Mosque, in the United States, and mentioned in some secondary source.  However I don't think it helps the purpose of an encyclopedia, according to M. Diderot, and it is not required that we do so, by WP policy stated. Thank you. BayShrimp (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How about an article Mosques in the United States? It could be based on serious sources (like books on the subject) and give accurate information on Muslim places of worship in general, and at the end have a list of the very few historically and/or architecturally important mosques in the US. Not every "notable" one. BayShrimp (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can find reliable sources substantial enough to write such an article, go for it. But that has nothing to do with whether we should also keep a separate list of all articles we have on mosques in the U.S. postdlf (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The list topic is certainly appropriate, but I wonder if this might be a WP:TNT candidate, given how little of it would belong in a proper list. It might be easier to start afresh by building a list directly from the category with AWB or some other automated tool, than to sift through this for the relatively few notable entries. postdlf (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 04:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * When there is a List of Catholic churches in the United States and this one is put up for deletion, then quote all the rules you want there is just, something wrong with the AfD process. WP:IAR. Anarchangel (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The main difference between the two is that only few churches have no article. Regarding the mosques, only a few have an article. The Banner talk 04:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also vote to delete the list of all notable Catholic churches. There is the same issue. Once you get below a certain level of importance, notability is more or less accidental.  It depends on finding a published source, newspaper story, local history book, or whatever that tells about the church.  What you end up with has very little connection with the state of Catholic churches in the USA.  I can imagine that more written about cities like New York and San Francisco would have more notable churches, as well as notable mosques. In both cases a category works just as well to help readers find articles. Remember "If an article lies, it must die." BayShrimp (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />


 * Keep - I know WP is not a directory but we have similar lists. Banner, many links are blue, some are red. You can help turn to blue some of the notable ones, or ask the editor (or directly do yourself) to trim what is unnecessary, but better not ask deletion. I prefer to have not-very-well-made-lists to our readers' searching for them -in vain- and thinking that WP has a preference of churches or synagogues or whatever against mosques. I think neutrality policy is more important than the Not-a-directory argument. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep-but limit to mosques that have an article. A list of notable religious structures is a valid list topic. I'm not seeing a reason to delete as the problem provided by the nominator can be fixed by editing. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously. There are several misguided ideas in comments above, IMHO.
 * TNT is offensive: First, the call(s) for [wp:TNT]] are offensive I think, as if they are meant to be deliberately insulting, as if to say the work by editors is so terrible it must be exploded. That is mean and unnecessary, and to simply delete the article and start over would violate the spirit and explicit policies of Wikipedia.  People's contributions are meant to be credited in the article history.  If, outside of wikipedia, someone publishes a list of notable mosques copied from here, they would be obliged to give credit to the article authors.  Calling for violating the social contract within Wikipedia, to allow/give editors credit, is inappropriate.
 * No need to limit to bluelinks wp:Redlinks help Wikipedia grow.  Everyone should agree that a list of notable mosques is obviously welcome/needed/valuable.  But it is good for lists to include items that don't have separate articles, including both items worthy and not worthy of future articles, per policy and guidelines and practice on lists.  One good purpose served by a list like this, by the way, is that it allows for diplomatic redirecting of articles on non-notable items to the list, rather than confrontationally deleting them in the AFD process.
 * -- do ncr  am  17:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The original list was one big list of external links (just like List of mosques in the United States with hardly and wikilinks to notable mosques. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I'm not doing what you think I should be doing. However I do agree that a list of important mosques is obviously welcome/needed/valuable. The problem is that notable does not equal important. Some important mosques will be left off the list and many with very little importance will be included. We WP insiders understand this, but an outsider seeing something titled "List of mosques in the United States" will not. BayShrimp (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you point to actual examples of anyone being confused by just what such a list represents? Because, as I said above, you're the first person I've ever seen make this claim. postdlf (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - this is now a directory of virtually every store front mosque around. A list would be appropriate.  I'll try a crack at trimming it down. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to do so, but the formatting of the list is too complicated for me! Can some person who is advocating for its being kept trim it down a bit, in good faith?  Otherwise, I'll have to go along with the nay-sayers. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.