Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baitul Mukarram Masjid (Karachi)

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 after extended time for discussion. This certainly appears to be a topic that is likely to be notable, and there is virtually no express support for deletion. BD2412 T 05:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Baitul Mukarram Masjid (Karachi)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unrelated coverage/references. Nothing notable in reliable sources. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. [was "Keep"] Assertion, not challenged, is that this is the second largest mosque in Karachi, the biggest city in Pakistan, which is a major assertion of importance. The deletion nomination is incoherent, as far as I can tell, and has no complete sentences. I interpret its sentence fragments to mean that the nominator views some or all sources in the article as including unimportant/unrelated information, which is not a reason for deletion. I interpret it to mean the nominator sees none of the sources as being reliable, also not a reason for deletion. I take it that the deletion did not perform wp:BEFORE and has no idea whatsover about the actual availabiltiy of reliable sources available in English and Urdu and other languages. Please speak up further, nominator, but otherwise this is frankly suitable for a "Speedy Keep" due to an invalid nomination. If the nominator won't express themselves in sentences, I highly doubt they did adequate other work (and do they speak Urdu by the way?) I will refrain from asking if they speak English. :) (Hey, please take that last sentence lightly, as intended.) --Doncram (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I rather assume this is a notable topic comparable to Baitul Mukarram National Mosque, in Bangladesh. It would be like deleting St. Patrick's Cathedral (Manhattan) and literally hundreds of other New York City church articles in Wikipedia, because they are all smaller than the Cathedral of St. John the Divine. Actually there are articles on more than 100 Catholic churches covered in Manhattan alone (see Category:Roman Catholic churches in Manhattan), much less all the other Christian denominations and times 5 boroughs. Here's a non-sentence for y'all: So literally thousands. --Doncram (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try also searching on "Jamia Masjid Bait-ul-Mukaram", which is how it is labelled in Google maps. And there are no doubt other spelling variations and complete name variations, also. --Doncram (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And pics at Beautifulmosque.com webpage about the mosque, which is a reference already in the article but ignored, establish notability 1,000 times better than words, too. Really, User:Störm could you please just withdraw this nomination? --Doncram (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe i was too strong/harsh about that. --Doncram (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you @User:Doncram you're right as i am also from Karachi and bait ul mukarram masjid is not far from my house it is second largest mosque in karachi after New Memon Masjid (i have also created an article on new memon masjid). Bait ul mukarram is also mentioned in many news website and if you search Mufti taqi usmani you will get to know he is Ameer of that mosque. i don't understand why you are nominating my pages for deletion continuously sorry to say instead of deleting the page you could have improve it just the way you have created few pages recently. i will also add User:Ngrewal1.

And sorry to say i have seen you're nominating AFD mainly from pakistan and daily you nominating 5 pages on average please don't do it wikipedia is a encyclopedia if pages have no or few reference it will get better in future or pakistani editors will do it.i am dissapointed unfortunately and i was planning to create few wikipedia this week but after i see you're deleting everything than i decided not to create any more article. anyways i am creating and adding more reference also will add reference in urdu language because bait ul mukarram has been mentioned in almost every newspapers of Pakistan.

here is latest reference i added "Daniel pearl kidnapping and foreign policy" US Magazine (slate) ( Todd, Asra Q. Nomani, Kira Zalan and Barbara Feinman. "Snoopy Ice Cream Parlour and the real story of Daniel Pearl's kidnapping". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2019-12-04.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) ) has mentioned Bait ul mukarram masjid karachi.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, User:Memon KutianaWala, that reference provides only a passing mention and does not provide any description or history or any other substantial content actually about the masjid itself. The only information it might provide is negative actually: it is named as a place where a terrorist said they have met another terrorist, but that information is not exactly helpful and you didn't put an assertion about terrorism association into the article. Attaching the reference in the front of the lede after the first two words "Baitul Mukarram", along with 5 other references attached there, doesn't help. I guess we can all say we believe that the masjid exists. What is needed to establish the topic's notability for Wikipedia is a few reliable sources actually providing substantial content about the masjid. It is nice but not necessary for a source to be _primarily_ about this place (which this new source is not); it must however provide substantial information about it (which this source does not). This source could possibly be used in the article to support a new assertion about the mosque having association with terrorism, but actually I don't think it even does a good job of that. To make a negative assertion like that would require more substantial development and sourcing; from that one source alone I frankly do not believe, myself, that the mosque is substantial in terrorism. It would be like saying, just because two muslim persons happened to say hello to each other in front of St. Patrick's Cathedral (Manhattan), that St. Patrick's is important in Islam.

Also, I mean this as helpful feedback to you, the placement of all references in the current article does seem to suggest that none of them support any substantial information about the mosque. The first seven references follow the second word in the article, as if to suggest they just support the existence of the mosque. Then it looks like four references look like they support the idea that a Mufti (whose association with the mosque is not explained) was with an administrator of the mosque at some other place, when the administrator was killed by terrorists somewhere else, while the Mufti was not killed. And the placement of the last reference suggests it supports the fact that some police and a driver were killed by the terrorists at the other location. I am not sure whether the killing of the administrator would go towards establishing terrorism association of the mosque; is that what you mean to suggest?

So, while offhand I tend to believe you that this is the second largest mosque in Karachi, that appears not to be directly supported by any source, so far. Nor does anything else about the mosque itself, besides its existence, appear to be supported, given how the article is currently written. I do still tend to believe that there must exist some sources out there, somewhere, actually describing the mosque (its architecture, its layout, its size) and its history (when was it built, was it the first mosque of the muslim group which built it or not, etc.). It is fair of the deletion nominator, or any other Wikipedia editor, to request that you develop the article better, if it is not to be deleted. Could you possibly please do that? And/or, relating to the question of notability of the mosque, could you here point to any sources which you know of which do seem to actually support notability? sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i could to it better if its not deleted i will add 5 references but they are in urdu language. BBC urdu ( سہیل, ریاض (2019-03-22). "مفتی تقی عثمانی قاتلانہ حملے میں بال بال بچ گئے". Retrieved 2019-12-04. ) has also passing mention of bait ul mukarram masjid but in urdu. i have also mentioned in article that mufti taqi usmani is amir of mosque also mufti shahab.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed statements about the mufti to the Talk page. Though perhaps it may be something valid to say, that a given person is or was a mufti of this mosque, if given with supporting reference. However that is still not really saying anything much about the topic of the article, which is the mosque. Is this person more important for something else, i wonder. Note it is not encyclopedic to list the names of staff of a school, say, at an article about the school, it doesn't really help readers know anything. We already could assume that staff exist, and they have names, we don't need to be told what the names are, usually. --Doncram (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After bbc urdu i have added two more references one is from urdu magazine talking about bait ul mukarram masjid and surrounding and one from urdu news website. any urdu editors are welcome to check :)Memon KutianaWala (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously this article is about a place of worship. I personally am satisfied with the existing large number (15 references) of reliable newspapers plus Pakistani TV channel news website references already there. In my view, it meets Wikipedia notability requirements.Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Ngrewal1, but note that Wikipedia does not accept articles about any and every place of worship. Just like we do not want articles about every restaurant, say every McDonald's location which can be found on a map. Is there anything significant about this mosque. It was previously asserted in the article that the mosque is the second biggest in Karachi, which impressed me, but someone else removed that, so now there is no assertion of it having any importance at all. Could you help identify any factual statement about the mosque, at all, which is supported by any of those sources, and could be included in the article? Besides that it is a place of worship and it has a location. --Doncram (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the way, I have tried to improve the existing references and also have added a related template about 'Mosques in Pakistan'. Hope this helps. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most of the coverage is only helpful to verify the mosque, but still no sources verify the claim of 'second-largest mosque'. Still fails WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Störm, that claim can easily be taken out which I did just now. Ngrewal1 (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just removed the majority of the article and its sources to its Talk page for discussion. Besides some interpretation by a Wikipedia editor about some photos, which is not valid to be included in an article, the content removed said nothing about the mosque. User:Störm is correct to be concerned about this article. Even without any sources supporting anything, I still tend to think it is a valid topic. But Storm is right that the content, before and after my last change, actually provides no supported information about the mosque, besides the fact of its existence and location (which anyone can know from looking at a map). The contributing editors here need to learn/understand that substantial information, supported by specific sources, needs to be provided. There has been mention of sources in Urdu, which could be acceptable. Sources do not have to be in English, and they do not have to be available online. But they do have to say something substantial about the mosque, they cannot be merely passing mentions having no actual information about the mosque.

By the way, is there a more substantial article in Urdu language Wikipedia or any other version of Wikipedia? --Doncram (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi This is the offical website of Darul uloom karachi and they have mentioned about "bait ul mukarram masjid" they are explaining when the mosque was built and on how many acres and students get islamic education and many other details: "جامع مسجد دارالعلوم کراچی | جامعہ دارالعلوم کراچی" (in Urdu). Retrieved 2019-12-06.. --Memon KutianaWala (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From Google translation of that webpage, it appears to me that the following passage is about this masjid. The webpage covers 4 mosques managed by a university of Karachi, and the passage is: "This mosque has a special status in the mosques of Karachi because of its breadth and style. The mosque and its associated area covers about five acres. There are several sanctuaries in the compound of the mosque Baitul Mukarram. There are five teachers and about two students are studying. There is also a seminar for academic talks; some teaching classes have also been started (up to Rabiya), as well as the Darfalafa and the center of Al-Aqsa al-Islami. Two sectors also serve their own useful service."

I am not sure that is all about the mosque from that webpage, because transitions between covering one vs. another are not clear to me. However, yes, that is some detail. It would be nice to know what about its "breadth and style" give it "special status", and more about what that means. Also there is no mention of this being the 2nd biggest mosque in Karachi (an assertion already dropped from Wikipedia article); one of the others covered at the webpage seems to be more important and/or bigger, and perhaps there are other mosques not associated with the university which are bigger. Anyhow, this webpage's assertion of some importance for this mosque perhaps suggests that more information about this mosque might be available somewhere else. --Doncram (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its 9th day completed and 10th day is started so can someone delete this tag ? as it has all the information updated and i will occasionally update more.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although there are several "keep" arguments and none aside from the nominator's to "delete", it is not been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is indeed the second-largest mosque in Karachi, nor that in-depth, independent coverage from reliable sources exist. It seems likely that this could be clarified, and then I think consensus could be readily reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment: To User:78.26, thanks, that is a fair summary. I am guessing that no participant here is going to provide substantial more information though.

As an alternative to deletion (wp:ATD), which we are supposed to look for, perhaps the mosque is or could be covered in List of mosques in Pakistan, and the article could be redirected to that row (using an "id=" anchor for the row). There is a mosque there already named Grand Jamia Mosque, Karachi, which is supposed to become the world's 3rd biggest mosque. That is not this one, is it? It covers a mountain top, while I think this one is on the flat between flat boulevards. Merging this article to a row there, and redirecting to it, would be a lesser alternative to deletion of the article. If/when substantial sources and content do eventually emerged, then the redirect could be converted back to being a separate article, with its edit history properly showing early contributions. But maybe this mosque is not substantial enough to be included in that list of very substantial mosques. --Doncram (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In absence of substantial sources being produced, I change my !vote to "Merge", leaving a redirect behind: it seems to be verified as a mosque and a row for it can be created in List of mosques in Pakistan. --Doncram (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, there is nothing to merge. I also think this should be redirected. Störm (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added few references and will add more in urdu too , the article is ok and have enough references now.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it still seems there is nothing factual to say about this place at all, much less enough to write an encyclopedic article. The English language sources are not about the mosque at all. For example the one sourced to dawn.com is all about some book's price, and towards the end there is passing mention " I had often seen the community police helping the elderly, women and children cross roads near the Baitul Mukarram Mosque in Gulshan-i-Iqbal and the Civic Centre." That is NOT ABOUT THE PLACE AT ALL. I assume all the Urdu language ones are useless also. No facts have been put forward. --Doncram (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nearest analogy is that we keep cathedrals, but not parish churches, unless they are historic in some way. It's hard for me to be sure of the equivalence, but it seems the importance of this is enough that it should go in the keep direction. DGG ( talk ) 10:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- But why do you think this is important, please? The English language sources do not establish importance. Given that the Urdu language sources are provided by the same editor, I think it is fair to dismiss them all as irrelevant. --Doncram (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Doncram please update your google translator or please let other editor understand the urdu language article is clearly passing everything and notable even bbc urdu has also passing nomination not only this foreign policy has also mentioned this mosque. i repeat again if you don't understand urdu and your translator is not good please leave it and let other editor understand as i have added enough references and urdu language references are of newspaper and blog and they are clearly telling about mosque and other detail there are more than 10000 wikipedia pages who have only one reference or two but they are active no one has put deletion tag to them because that kinds of article is created by "wikipedia admins or editors". this discussion is of pakistan and no one has said about 'deleting' as this mosque has been mentioned in newspaper and other blog and its notable.

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is government of karachi website and its in english passing mosque^[1] also i am adding few more references.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2019 (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.

^ "About Karachi". www.kmc.gos.pk. Retrieved 2019-12-14.

[1] "About Karachi". www.kmc.gos.pk. Retrieved 2019-12-14.

[1]