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 as improved. Consensus is now clear. BD2412 T 04:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baitus Samee Mosque (Houston) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

As a physical building, this fails WP:NBUILD. The mosque has no historic, social, economic, or architectural importance other than being a place of worship. As a religious organization, this fails WP:NCHURCH as it only receives mentions in local news coverage (see WP:AUD). And even then, most of the local news coverage does not consist of significant coverage in my opinion.  Bait30  ^Talk? 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^Talk? 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^Talk? 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^Talk? 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]--that is plenty of third party coverage.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nom: The third link is not third-party. The fifth link is a blog. The first, second, and fourth links are all local coverage of a singular event thus, it also fails WP:SUSTAINED. And in my opinion, those articles do not provide WP:SIGCOV as the mosque is only mentioned in passing as the victim of a crime. If those articles are enough to establish notability, then this random restaurant which is also a victim of a crime also passes WP:GNG per [6] and [7].  Bait30  ^Talk? 06:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete individual American religious congregations are rarely notable, even though they hold events that get a little coverage in the local media. I see no indication that this one in notable.IceFishing (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. [Was: "Merge", probably to List of mosques in the United States#Baitus Samee, or "Keep" outright.] This mosque, by its photo alone, appears to be a relatively significant mosque in the United States, and there is a row for it in the List of mosques in the United States already. I haven't checked all the sources suggested above, but if consensus is that this mosque is not clearly individually notable, it still can/should appear in the national list-article. And if further sources become available, the redirect left behind can be re-expanded into a full article. Merge/redirect complies with Wikipedia's policies to credit contributors, and our obligation to consider alternatives to deletion (wp:ATD). For the redirect to work, I am setting an "anchor" in the table row. This article should not be deleted outright, because this good alternative to deletion exists. --Doncram (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user who created the Baitus Samee Mosque (Houston) article is the same user who added the mosque to the List of mosques in the United States article. I feel like using that list article as an indicator of notability would lead to some WP:CIRCULAR troubles. If anything, the mosque should not be part of the list per WP:LSC and WP:CSC. The photo also shouldn't be used as an indicator of notability. Religious buildings tend to very beautiful and ornate, but it still fails WP:NBUILD.  Bait30  ^Talk? 07:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's fine as an item in the list-article, as determined by the list-article's principal editors so far, including me. Editors at a list-article are allowed to determine the list-item-notability criteria there. Or do you wish to fight that, there? If so then this AFD should be closed as an administrative matter, pending resolution there, say by an RFC which will take longer than an AFD usually runs. But actually the sources, one of which is a 15 minute documentary that the deletion nominator dismisses, do serve to establish some significance, so I am leaning towards "Keep" outright now. --Doncram (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 15-minute documentary is not independent of the subject. Baitus Samee Mosque follows the Ahmadiyya branch of Islam. The 15-minute documentary was produced by Muslim Television Ahmadiyya International, which was founded by Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the fourth Ahmadiyya Caliph.  Bait30  ^Talk? 17:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I grant that the current version of article is short and all its info could be presented in one row in the list-article. So keeping it split out is not necessary for size reasons. But the mosque exists, and it does appear to be notable to me. I am not sure that the documentary is too closely associated with this mosque for it to be dismissed in terms of establishing notability (it is not produced by this mosque itself, it was produced by a national or international organization). In any case, it is fine for Wikipedia to use substantial, non-controversial info from the documentary to develop the article. Since "list of mosques" is valid topic, then by size reason it is valid to split out a (longer) article on this mosque. --Doncram (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. A mosque does not deserve its own article simply because it's on List of mosques in the United States.  Bait30  ^Talk? 23:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose the idea of merging because it appears not to comply with the usual practice. At least, similar lists such as List of Greek Orthodox churches in the United States, List of Buddhist temples, and so forth only list blue linked articles, with the exception of, for example, the inclusion of Old Methodist Church (Daphne, Alabama) on the List of Methodist churches in the United States because it is an old, wooden building listed on the National Register of Historic Places and, therefore, could have an article if some editor undertook to write one. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that Wikipedia keeps lists of non-notable buildings or institutions.IceFishing (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sure, you are wrong. If what you mean is that you think lists can only consist of items that are individually Wikipedia notable and can have separate articles. No, list-item-notability can be a lower standard and often is. --Doncram (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well I know from my role in creating many of those and developing in almost all of them, that it is okay for there to be a "black-link" item to be targeted by a redirect. There are indeed a number of redlink items in several of those lists which assert their topics are individually notable. But it is also okay to cover a topic without splitting out an article.
  • And it is in fact listed there, so it makes better sense to redirect there than to delete outright, which is what IceFishing voted for further above. Note it would of course be reasonable to create a new redirect to the row in the list-article, while it is simply better to keep the edit history in place, to be restored and expanded if/when more sources are available. This is more compliant with Wikipedia policies on crediting contributors.
  • However, "Keep" remains better, as adequate sourcing has been found and more is likely available. See here is another source, this one not about threats to the mosque. It is from the Houston Chronicle and is about the visit of Mirza Masroor Ahmad, "a worldwide spiritual leader of Islam, to the mosque in 2018. (I have accessed too many articles there so can't see the full article.)
  • Also by the way there exists Islam in Houston too. --Doncram (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Houston Chronicle article that you linked only mentions the mosque in passing. The article is mainly about how the fifth Ahmadiyya Caliph was visiting Houston. The mosque is only mentioned in a "btw this is where he spoke" sort of way. It is not WP:SIGCOV.  Bait30  ^Talk? 06:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the Caliph is a VIP, and the fact that in their visit it was arranged for them to visit this mosque is some indication of relative importance or size or something about this mosque. And although you have not acknowledged it, the mosque is in fact covered in the list-article, and it would be tedious or stupid or something like that to refuse to allow a redirect, at least, to where it is covered in Wikipedia. And, I still don't agree that it is not individually notable; I think there is likely to be more coverage on-line which could be found by better searching (not requiring exact match on narrow name) and more coverage off-line as well. At this point, I would rather see some independent person's view about the Houston Chronicle article, too. --Doncram (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yup, as I surmised, there is plenty of on-line coverage found by searching "Baitus Samee Houston" from numerous news sources. I've added some to the article. As I inferred from the photo alone, this is a major mosque: it is one of 5 major mosques planned by its world-wide community to be built in the U.S. The fact of threats against it appears to me to relate to its great prominence in interfaith efforts, its size, and other importance. --Doncram (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to Bait30: IMO it gets tedious if an editor comments in response to every single other comment made which does not perfectly agree with the editor's stated position. Maybe it is more tedious if the editor is the deletion nominator. It is also more tedious if the editor does not concede an iota, ever, about any point at all, IMO. Please let a consensus emerge from others' discussion. --Doncram (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good point. I will abstain from commenting from now on.  Bait30  ^Talk? 01:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Doncram and the new sources. MB 16:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because sources have been added.IceFishing (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC) confirmed sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep appears to pass GNG with sources provided.Djflem (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2020 (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.