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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic toilet etiquette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article was nominated for deletion almost two years ago. The result of the discussion was a consensus to merge the article into Hygiene in Islam (an article which is now at Islamic hygienical jurisprudence). However, no merge tag was ever added to the page, and no merge ever actually took place. However, I'm going to argue now for an actual deletion. The content here is far too detailed for an encyclopedia article (since Wikipedia is not a how-to guide) and I certainly wouldn't want to see it taking up space in the Islamic hygienical jurisprudence article. Powers ^T 14:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I actually find it a useful article.  Chzz  ►  15:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely not encyclopedic in nature. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful and interesting Informative information that is not only encyclopedic in nature, but adds to the value of wikipedia and helps to promote understanding of cultural differences. Can be further developed and rewritten to address nominators concerns. --Nsaum75 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not likely. If the step-by-step guide is removed, what's left will be too trivial for anything but inclusion in a larger article. Powers ^T 23:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge to Islamic hygienical jurisprudence, so any actually useful information is accessible to editors. I agree that WP:NOT#HOWTO applies. Just because someone finds it useful or interesting is not reason enough to keep. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I should also point out that there's no evidence of notability here. Powers ^T 15:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Per above, this is a clear how-to. §FreeRangeFrog 17:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as this is clearly a how-to guide. Keep arguments are WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING. Basically, no good reason to keep this as a stand-alone article, and several good reasons (including WP:NOT#HOWTO) not to. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. It would be possible to make an argument to keep this on the basis of WP:CSB but I don't think there's enough encyclopaedic material there to fill an article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as we delete all sets of arbitrary rules for going to the bathroom, I think we're okay. =) Powers ^T 22:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NOEFFORT. I found no difficulty in adding a citation to this article. The HOW-TO objection seems slight in that the article obviously has to provide details of the rules before going on to discuss their origin and consequences. When the latter are fleshed out, it will be fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding WP:NOEFFORT - who has claimed that we should delete because no one is working on the article? Who has claimed it would be difficult to add a citation? --Explodicle (T/C) 23:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination states clearly that a merger was proposed two years ago and that the article should deleted because this was not done. This is the NOEFFORT argument which is weak because the complaint would be better addressed by performing the merger rather than starting this irrelevant AFD process. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, now I understand. I took that as a history of the article followed by a WP:NOT#HOWTO argument, but I can see how one can infer a relationship between the two. --Explodicle (T/C) 23:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point was that it had been agreed long ago that we don't need an article on this topic. I in no way meant to imply that it should be deleted simply because no one has been working on it. It has undergone revision since the original AfD, which is why I didn't just speedily merge it. Powers ^T 00:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Interesting article, to be improved. --Edcolins (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Please note that "It's interesting" and "it's useful" are not generally considered valid reasons to keep an article. Powers ^T 20:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This certainly falls under WP:NOTGUIDE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not think howto applies to the article as a whole, as it can be developed. I assume that there is extensive discussion in the appropriate sources (I need to say "assume" here, as finding them is a matter of printed sources that I cannot read). Every bit as encyclopedic a topic as other areas of Islamic or other religious law. This subject only apparently appears absurd. This is partially similar to other cultures in interesting ways, and we could use some additional articles on parallel topics. The appropriate catchphrase is rather notcensored. DGG (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What would you think of removing the "how-to" rules section, and moving the rest back to the parent article? The parent article is very short, and it might be more convenient for the reader to just get everything there until the toilet section gets expanded. --Explodicle (T/C) 23:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most of the article consists of a guide (WP:NOTGUIDE), the rest can be merged to the hygiene article.--Sloane (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Merge and delete. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. And this isn't a how to guide, it is a explanation on what they believe in and do. No one in the modern world(who has a computer that is, since those without internet are stilling living in a primitive miserable barbaric state), is going to actually consider using this is a guide on what to do. Dream Focus 04:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could easily write any number of step-by-step descriptions that no one would actually consider using. That doesn't make them appropriate for inclusion. Powers ^T 12:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of citations from reliable sources. Article is a vandalism magnet and when I first read it I thought it was a hoax. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These are clean-up issues. Rules and rituals whether religious and/or culturally based help define our lives. Daily rituals discussed encyclopedicly certainly can work fine. I share the concerns with how-to guide but that is tied to understanding the what why and history of rituals, That's an editing issue, first you pick up a spoon vs. a spoon is held aloft. These are fixable issues. -- Banjeboi 10:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One problem is that the link for the main source for this was broken; the "Compendium of Muslim Texts" was moved from the USC web site to the MSA West website. So that takes care of verifiability in at least one reliable source. Notability is established by many other references: For example, it is an issue in the 2012 Olympics that toilets need to be built that don't face Mecca; here's an article that describes many rituals, including those involving the toilet; a BBC News piece is called "Jail toilets face away from Mecca"; and here's a whole chapter in the Encyclopaedia of Islam on various etiquettes, including toilet etiquette; and here's a section on the "Etiquette of Going to the Bathroom" in The Pillars of Islam & Iman. DHowell (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as encyclopedic and sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:46, 11 March 2009 (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.