Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaffa Shrine Center


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Jaffa Shrine Center

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBUILD. It is a large arena, but there is no WP:SIGCOV I can see that would establish notability; hits are namedrops or WP:ROUTINE coverage in local media. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: per the below, this building appears to be better known (at least in the past) as "Jaffa Mosque". (To be clear, it is in Altoona, Pennsylvania, not Jaffa.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems unlikely that such a substantial and distinctive building would pass unnoticed. It is one of the largest arenas in Pennsylvania and has hosted numerous concerts, circuses, wrestling and other events.  It seems easy to turn up coverage such as this.  And the worst case would be merger into a page such as Altoona or the List of Shrine Centers.  It seems simplest and easiest to leave it as is for development and expansion per WP:ATD and WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That book refers to the "Jaffa Mosque". For my edification and that of other commenters, is that an alternative name for the "Jaffa Shrine Center"? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm British and so am not familiar with the Shriners, which are an American institution. So, I took the trouble to find out more about them and this place in particular.  Yes, it's the same place.  Now the nominator is expected to inform themselves about a topic before wasting our time with such nominations.  Here's the drill:

Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:
 * A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines:
 * 1) The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion as well as alternatives to deletion and the various deletion processes
 * 2) The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)
 * 3) Subject-specific notability guidelines, which can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, with further related essays at Category:Wikipedia notability. Common outcomes may be checked to see if other articles on a specific topic tend to be kept or deleted after an AfD discussion
 * B. Carry out these checks:
 * 1) Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, proposed deletion or speedy keep.
 * 2) If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)
 * 3) Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing.
 * 4) Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.
 * 5) Check to see if enough time has passed since previous nominations before renominating.
 * 6) Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
 * 7) Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better-sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lede.
 * C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted
 * 1) If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.
 * 2) If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.
 * 3) If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as, , , or ; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it.
 * 4) If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article.  This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term. If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.
 * D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability:
 * 1) The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.
 * 2) If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate.
 * 3) If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include unreferenced, refimprove, third-party, primary sources and one source. For a more complete list see WP:CTT.


 * Which of these steps has been done? Andrew🐉(talk) 16:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I searched all the web sources I could find, and found next to no coverage for "Jaffa Shrine Center". "Jaffa Mosque" is not an obvious alternative name for "Jaffa Shrine Center". If it turns out that it refers to the same building, and that there's significant coverage under that name, great, and I'll happily withdraw this nomination. Fwiw, a quick glance revealed some additional hits under that name. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the coverage which exists from 1930-present regarding the two names of this building. Passes WP:GEOFEAT with social and architectural importance. Not RS but Amazon is selling a postcard from when this was a mosque in 1950. Lightburst (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Mind providing some links? I could not find significant coverage myself under either of the two names—mostly routine event announcements. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is coverage in old newsprint like the Altoona Mirror (1930) 1930 Jaffa dedication ceremony. Lightburst (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.