Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous mosques

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous mosques

[edit]
List of famous mosques (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)

The criterium "famous" is highly subjective and not encyclopedic. It could attract a lot of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR content. Additionally, it is not a navigational list; Lists of mosques and all its sub-lists already serve that purpose. HyperGaruda (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but.... Neither the nominator nor the previous commentator seems to have looked at the history of the article - for most of its history, this article was List of mosques and the move to the present name was carried through as an "uncontroversial technical request" as recently as last July. Looking at the request, I can fully understand why User:Doncram made it, and why he seems to have made only one minor change (to the lede) to reflect the move. But, unfortunately, this AfD discussion, on a version of the article that has scarcely changed since (one new entry on the list, a few minor changes of detail on existing entries), rather shows why even apparently technical changes can have unexpected consequences. We certainly need to keep the page history, or we risk having every other list of mosques having potential attribution problems. Also, there is a strong advantage for readers in a selective list of better-known mosques when they have only partial details of which mosque they are looking for. But I accept that if this is to operate as such a list, we need to develop clearer criteria for it than we currently have - and that a substantial minority of the current entries are unlikely to meet any criteria the we develop, and should either be moved to the appropriate country list (if not there already) or removed altogether. PWilkinson (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the various other lists of mosques, then Redirect to that lists page. Wikipedia already has a standard for importance called "notability". "Famous" is redundant, and it's hard to see how there could be any reasonable criteria for "more famous" or "better-known" mosques beyond the many lists we have already. For example, list of largest mosques is a list of mosques famous for their size, list of the oldest mosques in the world is a list of mosques more famous than others because of their age, list of first mosques by country, etc. If there's content that hasn't been used in these or the various country-specific lists, it should indeed be merged. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites:, could you perhaps please see the edit-conflicted Comment below (composed without seeing your edit), and please consider revising your "vote!" to Keep this one and merge the other into it, instead of the other way around. This accomplishes the same thing on the surface, but behind the scenes it gives credit properly to the original list of mosques article. Or perhaps you would be indifferent? --doncram 15:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: I'm not entirely sure I'm clear on what you're proposing. Are you saying that (a) all of the location-specific lists of mosques should be combined into one and deleted or redirected, (b) all of the location-specific lists should be combined into one and co-exist with the "master list", (c) that the location-specific lists should include all mosques while this list should include all notable mosques (let's ditch "famous" for the time being), (d) that this list should be like List of companies of the United States by state, where there are many sections with just {{main}} templates and some lists for some states that do not have their own article (i.e. the current set of lists don't include all mosques so this page is needed), or (e) something else? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (EC) Thanks for the ping and thoughtful comment, PWilkinson, and thank you HyperGaruda for your attention to see something was amiss. Looking at the two lists, now I think that I was mistaken in requesting the technical move of this one from "List of mosques" to "List of famous mosques". This list of mosques was created in 2003 -- ancient times, in early days of Wikipedia (which was started in 2001 and was still small in 2003) -- and is the original one which should be preserved. The Lists of mosques (with plural "lists") was created in 2010 in this first version essentially as a split, merely a copy of "See also" section of the original list (in this version from that time), and should not be given credit, should not be allowed to usurp the original list of mosques. The original has edit history that should be preserved (i.e. the editors who developed the original list in 2003 should get credit, rather than the editor who split it in 2010); the "Lists" one has few edits with little/no significant originality in any of its few edits.
In general, I dislike the creation of, and gaming around, all the "Lists of X", and "Lists of lists of X", etc. that some have delighted in creating in Wikipedia. Usually those should just be fixed by moving those to (or back to) a "List of X". There is need just for one top-level list of mosques, which can link to subsidiary lists by geographical area and/or by other break-downs. Here, I made a mistake in thinking the "Lists" one was the original/primary one, and mistaken in thinking the original was meant to be limited. Rather, the original was intended to be THE list of notable mosques in Wikipedia. We must recall that the future of having really long lists was not anticipated by editors back in 2003, and subsequently there were issues of what is considered "notable" for this list of all notable mosques. Someone had put into its lede the plea to limit this list to cover only notable ones, so that it would not become an inappropriate directory of all mosques. Its lede was: "A list of famous mosques around the world. (Note: Please do not put all mosques in here. Keep this article to notable mosques only.)", reflecting a wish that relatively few mosques should be included in Wikipedia at all. What should have been done in 2010 was that the lede should have been adjusted to acknowledge that the train had already left the station, that the floodgates had been opened, and that by 2010 there had already developed sublists such as "List of mosques in Asia", "List of mosques in Europe", etc. (linked in the "See also" section), that there were multitudes of mosques having articles or otherwise accepted as "notable" for inclusion on the greater list of mosques. So the lede should have been updated "This is a list of notable mosques" or merely "This is a list of mosques" (because the word "notable" is to be understood), and its contents should have been adjusted to clarify it was the master list (dropping the "See also" label for its index of sub-lists). And arguments about list-item notability should have taken place on its Talk page.
It is a separate issue (and for the Talk page, not for AFD) about whether the "List of mosques" article can itself include in a section a list of a well-defined set of the ones "most notable" in a particular sense first, and then index sublists of ALL notable mosques by geography, or whether that section must be split out. I happen to think that is okay to include that section, with the clarification that the "most notable" set be well-defined to be the current set of oldest mosques and/or "first" mosques in each country that are still existing today. This is not a huge number of mosques to cover. Currently there is overlap between section of "famous" ones here (started in 2003) vs. List of the oldest mosques in the world (created 16 December 2010 by User:Swampyank) vs. List of first mosques by country (started in 2012) by User:MatthewVanitas. And there is a current merger discussion regarding the latter two going on at Talk:List_of_the_oldest_mosques_in_the_world#Merger_Discussion. I am inclined to edit the current article to implement the appropriate merger now. Note: an example of a "list of X" starting with a small section of "most notable" X's is List of Methodist churches#United States, which gives 4 top ones and then links to comprehensive sublist(s) of all notable ones by geography (by U.S. state, which repeats entries for the top 4 ones in their separate states). Again, any refinement necessary for such a section in the main "List of mosques" is a matter for Talk page discussion, not AFD. And again, it was my bad for not figuring this out in July 2015. I think it was just too complicated, or I was too busy in some way, for me to figure it out properly then. --doncram 15:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, [but implement "Proposal A" which moves this list. Was "Keep"] and rename it back to "List of mosques", and revise it suitably (including any merging appropriate), and redirect the usurper Lists of mosques to this one. Per explanation in my comment just above. Note, wherever there exists a "List of X" now, we would not accept someone 1) jumping in, creating "Lists of X" with a plural "S" and 2) requesting deletion of the original "List of X", with or without renaming it differently for a while, first. That's what this AFD would essentially accomplish. I am sorry for my previous mistake (in July 2015) in creating this situation where well-intentioned editors would subsequently perceive this current list to be the improper one. --doncram 15:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nom: In light of recent developments, I would not oppose renaming the article to List of mosques, replacing its contents by that of Lists of mosques (& redirecting the latter), and finally requesting a WP:HISTMERGE of the two. However, I am still against the idea of including specific mosques based on such sketchy and subjective criteria like "notable" and "famous". I mean, how do we choose them without offending groups (nations/denominations) whose mosques are not included? IMO it's best to simply leave out that pain in the a. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems like a basic stylistic issue. What is the point of such a move? If a list includes only other lists and not the actual subject itself (i.e. no mosques), that makes more sense as "lists". Regardless, isn't that a separate discussion? You're saying to move lists to list of mosques. Neither the name nor the content of this article plays a role in that, no? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, you are right. I was hesitating because of the page history attribution, mentioned by PWilkinson, but redirecting List of famous mosques to Lists of mosques would indeed avoid that issue. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Numerous encyclopedias list famous mosques in Moslem cities such as Cairo and Istanbul and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. The concept of fame is not especially subjective and is to be expected in an encyclopedia, which will tend to emphasise the most prominent examples as that's good summary style and is what the readership is likely to want. Andrew D. (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Numerous encyclopedias"; a few examples would be nice. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The New Encyclopedia of Islam
  2. Encyclopedia of World Geography
  3. The World Book Encyclopedia
  4. Encyclopedia of World Travel'
  5. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia'
  6. Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World
  7. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia'
  8. Illustrated World Encyclopedia
  9. Encyclopedia of Architecture
  10. The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam
  11. Ilmi Encyclopaedia of General Knowledge
  12. Dictionary of Islamic Architecture
  13. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica
  14. Collier's Encyclopedia
  15. Encyclopedia of Asian History
My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: This seems like a !vote to keep the list of mosques in [location], which we do already have and which could indeed be expanded. We're not talking about lists of mosques in particular places; we're talking about a "list of famous mosques". Are you saying those encycloepdias have a "list of famous mosques"? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different encyclopedias naturally cover this in different ways, depending their structure and focus. For example, the Encyclopedia of Architecture has "The following is a brief review of some of the most famous mosques of Islam. Although this is not a comprehensive survey, it will illustrate the tremendous variety of mosque forms and shapes in the Muslim world ". My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that there have been numerous AfD discussions about Lists of famous Xs. An argument that was frequently brought up, was the inherent non-neutrality of "famous", and we all know that NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. If we were to keep this list of famous mosques, what would be the criteria of inclusion? - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second example in that search is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous tall men. There was no consensus for deletion and it's still a blue link. But if we are going to look at the history of this, we should start with this page – the actual page in question. Did you know that it was created in 2003 as the plain list of mosques? It was briefly named list of notable mosques around 2010 but that was reverted. It has only had the title list of famous mosques since July of last year – a supposedly uncontroversial move. This word "famous" in the title, which HyperGaruda is making such a big deal about, isn't a fundamental aspect of the topic. It doesn't appear that the nominator has any history of editing this long-standing topic, nor do they appear to have engaged in discussion on the page's talk page. This seems to be a blatant violation of WP:BEFORE – a drive-by, knee-jerk nomination of a substantial page that has existed without major problems for over ten years. Please withdraw it. Andrew D. (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that List of famous tall men has been a redirect since an AfD in 2007, according to its log. Back in 2003, the plain list of mosques was small, but has since grown to such an extent, that the "Lists of mosques–List of mosques in [country/location]" combo was made per WP:SPLIT. That combo is the NPOV heir to List of (notable) mosques. Our List of famous mosques is nothing more than a POVvy excerpt. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to the closing admin: I have synced the blue-linked entries in the List of famous mosques to all continental/national lists, so there is no need to merge anymore. A simple redirect will do now. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to the closing admin: What Andrew Davidson correctly points out, and what I said in too many words further above, is that this one is the list-article that is to be kept, and the other/newer list-article should be merged and redirected to it. [I'm willing to do the merging.] (Logistics-wise, perhaps the newer list-article needs to be moved first to, say, "Another list of mosques" "List of notable mosques") The edit history from 2003 trumps newer stuff. --doncram 18:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So just because an article has a long edit history, it should be kept? It that what you are saying? - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First i am saying that the article created first on the topic is the one which should be saved at the topic (List of mosques); don't reward would-be usurpers. I am less sure about our obligation to contributors to the second, usurping version, but if its edit history can be saved within a reasonable redirect, why not do that? --doncram 11:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments in support of having a list of "famous" mosques swayed me to think "Keep"ing this list might be okay. Like if someone (User:Andrew Davidson?) would volunteer to edit it, adopting some working definition of "famous" and removing any non-famous ones, I'd probably be very happpy go along with that. But adopting any working definition of "famous" would be new, and a new List of famous mosques could be created from scratch at any future time at the redirect List of famous mosques that would be left by "Proposal A" below. Or that redirect could be deleted so a new list would show properly as new, if created. --doncram 20:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right. That's usually how WP:SPINOUTs work. There's one article/list that grows until it seems unwieldy, unmanageable, or otherwise like it would be better handled by separate pages. Then those separate pages are created. If the scope is otherwise the same (which seems the case assuming there's some consensus that "famous" is not an acceptable criterion), then the original list would turn into some sort of list of lists. If not all of the content was spun out, it would probably comprise links to the spun out articles and smaller lists of what isn't covered. The point of spinning things out is to remove them from the original page for readability, navigability, searchability, and whatnot. That it's older doesn't mean anything because they're not duplicates. I'm also still not entirely clear what your intentions are (I asked above). I see arguments about "usurpers" and declarative statements about what must happen, but not a clear explanation of why or what the landscape of these pages would look like if you had your druthers. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: fyi, the merge/redirect is exactly what Rhododendrites suggested up there on 23 March and with which I wholly agree (see comment at 19:38, 23 March 2016). - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. Rhododendrites' 23 March version leaves the main list (organized by geography) as part of "Lists of mosques" rather than as "List of lists". And that version leaves the 2003-started edit history at the redirect from "List of famous mosques" instead of at the main list. That version achieves more or less the same appearance to readers though, besides "Lists" vs. "List" in title of main list. --doncram 20:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Call this Proposal A: If I had my druthers, in answer to User:Rhododendrites, I would abide by principles that
a) The concept of "Famous mosques" is not yet defined, and if someone wants to create a good "List of famous mosques" according to some definition they can do so from scratch.
b) a "List of mosques" should exist that indexes all of Wikipedia's mosques, organized geographically. Such an index exists now in the "See also" section of List of famous mosques and also there is one within Lists of mosques.
c) The edit history of "List of mosques" should be that of the original 2003-started list now at List of famous mosques, created by User:Technopilgrim. It should not be that of the 2010-started Lists of mosques, started by User:UnitedStatesian. The current List of mosques has only ever been a redirect and has no edit history worth saving. I am the editor who redirected that to Lists of mosques and thereby was putting UnitedStatesian in the role of being the apparent master originator of the idea of having a list of mosques in Wikipedia, so I or Unitedstatesian are the (perhaps-accidental) "usurpers" I referred to.
d) The edit history of the current Lists of mosques is less important to save, but still important by Wikipedia's principles. It could be saved as the edit history of a redirect, say List of mosques by geography or, better, as the edit history of "Template:Lists of mosques" (proposed next), and that fact could be permanently mentioned at the top of the Talk page of the "List of mosques" which results from this proposal.
e) IMO "Lists of X" are invalid because they are self-referencing. What they really are, are "Wikipedia Lists of X". Only if the topic "Lists of X" is valid in the real world, i.e. if there really exist different historically notable defined lists of X out there (such as, making this up: "Linnaeus's categorization of species", "Buffon's list of species", "Species identified by Darwin" and "Species accepted as of the Seconda Esposizione of 1832") is it justified to have a Wikipedia article about the history and differences of those lists. However, a navigation template is understood to be self-referencing, to be a navigation aid to Wikipedia articles. So it is okay/good to have a navigation template named "Template:Lists of mosques" that indexes Wikipedia's distinct list-systems of mosques, which are:
Specifically then I would:
  1. Merge content of List of famous mosques to other lists. (HyperGaruda may have done all or part of that already.) Replace by index of geography-based lists (i.e. its own "See also" section).
  2. Move List of famous mosques over redirect to List of mosques (currently a redirect to Lists of mosques)
  3. Move Lists of mosques to Template:Lists of mosques and edit that to be a navigation template indexing Wikipedia's distinct lists of mosques. Or move it to a plausible redirect to List of mosques. Record fact of where its edit history ends up, at top of Talk:List of mosques.
  4. Edit Lists of mosques to redirect to List of mosques
  5. Put Template:Lists of mosques at the bottom of the list-articles that it indexes.
This "Proposal A" now achieves the main intentions of everybody's concerns expressed so far, I think. A vote for this would be "Keep, but implement Proposal A" (which moves/renames the AFD'd list, but that is a Keep outcome). --doncram 20:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Compatible with "Proposal A", right? --doncram 20:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Why do we need to have a list of famous mosques. If they are famous then they do not need this article in order to be famous. Another thing to point out is that being famous is subjective. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent with "Proposal A", which does not leave a "List of famous mosques". --doncram 20:46, 14 April 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_famous_mosques&oldid=1084281616"