Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Center of Riverside

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The coverage may not be overwhelming but the consensus is pretty clear. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Center of Riverside

[edit]
Islamic Center of Riverside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for Notability (companies and organizations). The organization was searched using the first 100 hits from Internet websites, reliable newspaper, book and periodical sources. References of the organization in 50 of the 100 results are incidental references mentioning that it was where one of the San Bernardino shooters prayed. The organization is mentioned in 36 results as part of a directory of mosques. The remaining 14 results were articles that covered events that incidentally took place at the organization or interviews with individuals that incidentally belong to the organization. Only one reference from a reliable source provides the depth of coverage about the organization that would qualify it to meet Wikipedia's notability requirement. Since only one source exists, it does not meet the "multiple independent sources" requirement. Amineshaker (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it appears to not to be noteworthy nor merit having a Wikipedia article. There is no emphasis being placed on the Centre by the media and, as said above, is only referenced in passing. Delete. QuartzReload (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The fact that this mosque is currently mentioned daily in a great number of media sources is in fact an argument for keeping. i.e., this mosque has now acquired international notability, a notability that it will retain in future discussions of this terrorist attack. Moreover, as Wikimandia said, the me mosque has had mainstream coverage over many years, i.e., long before this incident, two of which are already in the article. The article is actually quite ordinary, this is a large, thriving mosque and wikipedia has many articles on large, thriving churches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just ran a news google search on this mosque (by relevance, not date). Many of the top hits have coverage of mosque that can be added to the article, probably because journalists are beginning to look at and report about this mosque. It turns out, for example, that in addition to the attacker, one of the survivors of the San Bernardino attack prayed at this mosque. Nom's assertions simply do not hold up.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as Nom ought to have seen from scanning hits in the search he describes, the terrorists who attacked in San Barnardino were married in this mosque (a second wedding following the religious ceremony in Saudi Arabia). It is entirely routine to mention notable people whose weddings were held in a Wikipedia article about a church; it adds to a church/mosque's notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikimandia and E.M.Gregory above.--Regards, James(talk/contribs) 09:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I vote in favor of deleting due to not meeting Wikipedia's notability requirements for Organizations & companies. In responding to the Keep votes:
    • (1.) "it's been around since 1979 and has had coverage over the years. Now of course it has more than 2,100+ news hits. "
      • Date of establishment and number of hits does not qualify an article for notability. As mentioned before, the coverage of the Center in the media has been incidental (either pertaining to the suspect of the San Bernardino shooting or of a regional not-specific to the Center). Incidental references does not meet the Notability requirement.
    • (2.) "this is a large, thriving mosque and wikipedia has many articles on large, thriving churches"
      • The size of level of activity does not, on its own, does not qualify for Notability on Wikipedia without non-incidental reference in reliable sources
    • (3.) "The fact that this mosque is currently mentioned daily in a great number of media sources is in fact an argument for keeping. i.e., this mosque has now acquired international notability"
      • The international notability that is being referred to is pertaining to the incidental fact that the suspect of the San Bernardino shooting attended services there. Again, an incidental reference that does not speak about the Center itself as an organization.
    • (4.) "Many of the top hits have coverage of mosque that can be added to the article, probably because journalists are beginning to look at and report about this mosque. It turns out, for example, that in addition to the attacker, one of the survivors of the San Bernardino attack prayed at this mosque...the terrorists who attacked in San Barnardino were married in this mosque (a second wedding following the religious ceremony in Saudi Arabia)"
      • Again, the Center is being referenced incidentally in relation to the shooting. So far, there is only non-incidental article referenced in the article as of today, which on its own is not sufficient for Notability. ("Riverside: Islamic Center celebrates with an open house"). For those who vote on keeping the article, I highly advise them to include additional articles that provide coverage on the Center itself to prove it meets the Notability requirement. At that point, I would change my vote to Keep Djrun (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources 1,2,and 4 are substantive, independent, and were published long before the shooting. The post-shooting sources are not mere mentions; some discuss the link with the shooters and his gun-purchasing childhood friend in context of the fact that both attended this mosque; Some discuss the marrriage celebration held for/by he two shooters at this mosque; some sources interview mosque staff and members, quoting as they describe the shooters and the childhood friend, describing them, their attitudes and behavior; other post-shooting articles quote the imam of this mosque - sometimes at length. Substantive coverage is substantive coverage. Such coverage confers notability, no matter what event prompted the coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 23:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep - The article in the LA Times, though it says very little, does appear to focus on the place. If a modicum of notability is the criterion for inclusion, then it looks like this article passes. But the keep vote is offered with no enthusiasm, and with reservations as to its justifiability. KDS4444Talk 11:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to the content above from E.M.Gregory that there are substantive sources, Sources 1 and 2 are NOT properly independent, let alone substantive. They are newspaper infomercial space fillers for open houses held some time ago. An open house mention in a newspaper is not substantive. Source 4 is not principally about this facility at all, it's about a wider group's perceptions. And the LA Times article does say... very little at all. Well, not quite. It paints a wonderfully detailed "encyclopedically relevant" picture for us: "As dawn broke Thursday, a few latecomers shuffled into the hall. Kuko welcomed them into his office, and offered them Sunny Delight, which he poured into small Styrofoam cups." Whole paragraph. That's the whole paragraph. I mean that's the whole paragraph. And every other paragraph isn't even as good. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bizarre comment Sources 1, 2 are, in fact, signed reported articles form The Press-Enterprise, a large, regional daily. Even the photo in the first article is by a Press-Enterprise staff photographer. FeatherPluma's assertions are false. The worst that can be said about these stories is that they are features local-institutiin-doing-good-stuff human interest stories of the type all newspapers run. The fact that the major daily in the region chose this mosque to feature is exactly the sort of thing that counts towards notability for a local institution of any kind. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic: Islamic center in some other Riverside
The Riverside in GBooks is located in the midwest; definitely not Riverside, CA. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see this as no different then Inland Regional Center who's website crashed as the shooting story broke. It did not have an article either until I created it. Leadership of the mosque rushed to the reporters and made the mosque notable if it was not before. Legacypac (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I am surprised there are people who actually think there is any reason to keep this article. It doesn't have more than one verified source, therfore, it must be deleted. There is no real focus on the actual mosque, its all on the shooting. Which is the only reason it was created, im sure. We need to be very weary of demonizing mosques- there is no reason to draw any link from this place to terrorism. Wikipedia cannot take part in any smear campaigns or bigoted speculation. Delete this article. Once there are more sources, and information on the mosque itself- only then can it be recreated, & if created, there should be no mention of this shooting. Period. VisaBlack (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - barely passes WP:GNG. One note, an earlier editor commented that when you nominate an article for deletion you are required to let the article's creator know of the nomination. That isn't entirely correct, it's "While not required, it is generally considered courteous", but not required. Onel5969 TT me 14:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and mention elsewhere at best as there is a detailed article here but perhaps not as solid as it could be. NOTE: Please relist a third time if consensus is not clear enough. SwisterTwister talk 19:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete article does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements (lacking non-incidental references from reliable sources); additional referenced facts and "a long BBC report" added to the article still continue to reference the Islamic Center of Riverside soley in relation to the San Bernardino shootings ("An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." WP:INHERITORG) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amineshaker (talk • contribs) 17:35, 4 January 2016‎
  • Please read article before making FALSE assertions. In fact, news coverage of this mosque already in article dates back years before the San Bernardino murders and is far from "incidental". E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing editor The article gives the mosque's size, details the scope and type of programs it sponsors, sources the building's construction and architect, describes the non-jihadist, moderate stances taken by congregation and leadership, and, yes, closes with details about its most notorious attendees. This coverage and detail (with the exception of the name of the architect, sourced to the architectural database at MIT) comes from reputable news media, mostly major regional, national, or international outlets, plus one California-based ethnic paper India-West. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islamic_Center_of_Riverside&oldid=1137935870"