Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Mosque Wembley

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. Black Kite (t) 00:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Central Mosque Wembley

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

Creator removed PROD. No sources to assert notability. Reads like an advertisement of services. Just a short history w/o references, and listing of services. Unremarkable so far. Alexf^(talk) 20:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has the makings of a good article; it has only just been created by a new user and just needs references. The article is about a place of worship and it is not an "advertisement of services". The creator of the article did not remove PROD Racklever (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: My confusion. Racklever removed PROD. Nomination still stands. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes it may have a the makings the article might become good. But it also has no sources to assert notability. The article does sound like an advertisement of the Mosque and of its services. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ... on balance, I'm going for a merge to Wembley. Most of this article is about the mosque's current activities, which doesn't really fit in with Wikipedia's format of documenting permanently notable information, but at least some of the information in the history looks worth preserving (assuming it can be verified). If necessary, it might be worth creating a new section on Places of Worship. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this was brought to AfD a mere two and a half hours after creation. Clearly no serious attempt has been made to seek good sources, which may not be readily available online. The article creator has made just three good faith edits on Wikipedia and now has been severely bitten. A note about getting better references would have been more appropriate. I have added the London and Islam projects and notified them about this AfD. Clearly a place of worship with a new capacity of 3,500 is likely to have some notability. I shall investigate better sourcing tomorrow. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to delete as I can find no sources on or off-line apart from directory entries and other passing mentions. I did attempt to clean up the article, but the creator refuses to communicate and is now introducing poor grammar. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to chop and change, but I have managed to find a few sources, although much of the information is still unsupported. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I tried Ghits, Gnews and Gbooks with no joy (at least not with "Central Mosque" Wembley), although I can't speak for non-online sources. I agree that a mosque of that size does need at least need a mention somewhere though. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've had a root around for sources and can't find anything more than a bare mention such as this:"On the corner, an Irish pub marks the start of Ealing Road, where mock Tudor and Georgian terraces rub shoulders with halal butchers and Bollywood video shops. Within 100 yards there is a Mosque, a Methodist church, a Baptist chapel and a Gospel centre." If we allow even a mention for the mosque then we should, per WP:UNDUE, also allow mentions for the other churches, the Irish pub, the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. But Wikipedia is not a directory. Warden (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The importance of Islam in London cannot be doubted. The conversion of a large, historic church into a mosque is also important. What is needed is time to find the appropriate sources for a brand new article. Perhaps the sources are not in English. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that the source is non-English, given the mosque is in London. Ratibgreat (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several newspapers published in London in Modern Standard Arabic, including Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Al-Hayat, and Asharq Al-Awsat. I do not know the extent to which any of them cover news in London rather than the Arabic speaking world, but this mosque might well be covered. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only way we can salvage the article is if the former church was notable. I'm sorry, but where I come from, every mosque has a 2,200 capacity, and almost none of them are notable. There are quite a few big churches in Bangladesh as well, but none of them are notable. Point - size necessarily doesn't assert notability. Ratibgreat (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The building was Grade II listed in 1993. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the conversion of the former church to a mosque is covered in Arabic sources, it seems to me that could make the mosque notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A new article should not be expected to have in-depth coverage by independent third party sources within a week of creation. This article should be kept long enough for editors seeking to improve or document it to do their work. Deletion should not be the fate of a new article before there is an opportunity to add inline citations from sources other than obvious online ones in English. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2011 (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.