Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Converted mosques

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 merge to mosque. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Converted mosques

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

Nothing notable. It's just a combination of 2 words, not anything anyone would look up. Nothing is written to denote any reason for it being here. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with mosque or delete (there's nothing much to merge). Nothing here warrants its own article. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This topic appears to have received some coverage in reliable sources. See this 1876 Google Books entry. I recommend a merge/redirect to mosque. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to mosque where a paragraph can be added on this sub-topic with sources as found by Cunard above. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to mosque Apart from the way they are acquired, there's nothing differentiating converted mosques from regular ones; too little difference for a separate article, but the practice is worth mentioning. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, ha. Some say Merge? There is only 1 sentence of substance (the first one). I guess to me, that would be a delete, hence my nomination. Perhaps weakly redirect? I guess you could convince me, but even that sounds unnecessary when deleting would still enable it to be recreated if there ever was anything of substance at mosque that needed to spill over. It's not like the people editing mosque have been dying to write volumes on this supposedly meritorious topic. I guess I will go back to sleep.I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:42, 15 December 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.