Deletion of Islamic toilet etiquette (second nomination)

Comment: This certainly falls under 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTGUIDE)

Comment: One problem is that the link for the main source for this was broken; the "USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts|Compendium of Muslim Texts" was moved from the http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/ USC web site to the http://www.msawest.com/islam/fundamentals/pillars/prayer/prescribed/pp1_2.html 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 http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2008-09-24-1653952330_x.htm toilets need to be built that don't face Mecca; http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD16Aa02.html here's an article that describes many rituals, including those involving the toilet; a BBC News piece is called "http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4926114.stm Jail toilets face away from Mecca"; and http://books.google.com/books?id=VDXalcz71FsC&pg=PA33 here's a whole chapter in the ''Encyclopaedia of Islam'' on various etiquettes, including toilet etiquette; and http://books.google.com/books?id=u-bNf9xCULsC&pg=PA58 here's a section on the "Etiquette of Going to the Bathroom" in ''The Pillars of Islam & Iman
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: Most of the article consists of a guide (), the rest can be merged to the hygiene article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTGUIDE)

Comment: as this is clearly a how-to guide.  Keep arguments are  and  and . Basically, no good reason to keep this as a stand-alone article, and several good reasons (including #HOWTO) not to. Special:Contributions/Theseeker4|'''The'''&nbsp
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:USEFUL||WP:INTERESTING||WP:NOT)

Comment: per . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOEFFORT)

Comment: It would be possible to make an argument to keep this on the basis of  but I don't think there's enough encyclopaedic material there to fill an article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:CSB)

Comment: or '''merge''' to Islamic hygienical jurisprudence, so any actually useful information is accessible to editors. I agree that #HOWTO applies. Just because someone finds it |useful or |interesting is not reason enough to keep
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:INTERESTING||WP:useful)