Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Actualcpscm (talk | contribs) at 14:19, 25 November 2023 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Navigation_Tower_(2nd_nomination) (assisted)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Architecture, buildings, construction, city planning and public spaces. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Architecture|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Architecture, buildings, construction, city planning and public spaces. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Architecture

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 redirect‎ to Supreme Education Council (Qatar). Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation Tower

AfDs for this article:
Navigation Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; there seems to be no significant coverage in WP:GNG sources. Previous AfD resulted in a soft-delete, and the article has now been recreated. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 14:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Qatar. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 14:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite it being a distinctive design, it doesn't appear to have attracted much media attention. I can only find a brief description on Worldfinance.com. It looks like it was a commercial venture by a shipping company. Sionk (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not have SIGCOV. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 16:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Supreme Education Council (Qatar), the building's main occupant which has its name upon it. Nate • (chatter) 21:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be good to mention the building on the redirect target with an RS; this seems like a good ATD. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 23:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: This building is not notable. However, the main occupant of this building is Qatar's top education department, and there is an article dedicated to it. HarukaAmaranth 春香 17:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Not notable enough for a standalone article. The Kip 23:56, 27 November 2023 (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.
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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn per WP:SK1 point 3, and all current !votes have been to keep. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Central Building (Seattle)

Central Building (Seattle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think one of the two you are referring to is the one by Walt Crowley and Paul Dorpat; I added it after the nomination was made. It's on Google Books; I didn't include a link because the page-specific link didn't seem to work. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Historic/landmark building, helpful info here. I am currently traveling internationally, so I'm limited in my ability to further expand the entry at this moment beyond what has already been added since nomination. Surely a search in the Seattle Times archives would allow inclusion of more details, including management, sales, tenants, etc., and the linked source has a lot more info re: description/design. Entry should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 09:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks to have been designated, so would fall under "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable." Espresso Addict (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Espresso Addict. Notable per heritage. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per city landmark designation. There's plenty of sources available for a century-old building that has survived in a major American downtown. SounderBruce 03:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination per excellent ponits above. Thanks for proving me wrong. Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Boleyn, not many editors withdraw their nom when it becomes obvious that improvements and points for keep have been made. Most "fight on" until people are bickering and tiring of the discussion. Appreciate your principled editing. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1. While I don't think the nom was necessary, I appreciate your comment and willingness to withdraw here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:51, 28 November 2023 (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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bratenahl Place

Bratenahl Place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Has been in CAT:NN for over 6 years. Boleyn (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A shame there are no sources, because this is a well written starter article. However, nothing is substantiated by secondary sources, so verification is an issue. So too is notability, as significant and indepth secondary sources are required to establish notability. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:19, 3 December 2023 (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.
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. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [talk to me] 17:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bayfair Shopping Centre

Bayfair Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep more sources exist. Can be improved. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: repeated coverage in the NZ Herald establishes notability. Owen× ☎ 15:12, 2 December 2023 (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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. Khan Tower

A. K. Khan Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete This why we have WP:NOTCRYSTAL, as I see no evidence, eight yeas later, that this building was even started, much less that it will ever be completed to specs. Mangoe (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2023 (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.
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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burrows Court

Burrows Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2023 (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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1010 Mass

1010 Mass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2023 (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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1001–1011 Jefferson Street

1001–1011 Jefferson Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") This has been in CAT:NN for 2 years. Boleyn (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only source cited is a dead link -- and when that link was live, it was to a page on the building developer's own website. So there are no independent sources provided, nor can I find any good sources myself. This building is described on this page merely as a "vision" since 2017, and there is no indication here that it is actually going to be built at all, much less any time soon. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2023 (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.
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. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 800 Apartments

The 800 Apartments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Geography, and Kentucky. Skynxnex (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm going to work on the article this weekend to see if I can get it up to snuff. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 08:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I worked on the article some today, and may have already satisfied WP:NBUILDING, but at any rate, I will add more tomorrow. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 05:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's more work to do in the article, but in my estimation, the article already meets notability criteria, with multiple reliable sources, supporting the building's superlatives (particularly that 1) the building was tallest in Louisville, a top-50 US city, for a decade; 2) it won the first FHA Honor Award; 3) it was designed by a notable architect) and other aspects of the property. There's plenty of in-depth coverage of this building (at the very least by Kentucky's largest newspaper) over the years, which can be seen in newspapers.com searches. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 19:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep due to Stefan's excellent editing establishing notability. TH1980 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination I can't disagree with Stefen's excellent points. Thanks for proving me wrong. Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2023 (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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

375 Hudson Street

375 Hudson Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is an existing building, and some sources mention it, but not showing significance. Has been in CAT:NN for over 2 years. Boleyn (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2023 (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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5 Taian Dao

5 Taian Dao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am aware I may be missing sources through not reading in other languages, but I couldn't find sources to show this building is notable. Has been in CAT:NN for two and a half years. Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2023 (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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maharishi Vastu Architecture

Maharishi Vastu Architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This overly bloated article on an obscure set of design principles followed by the Maharishi cult is bizarre to say the least, but it is more problematically being propped up by sources which are published in low-quality journals without outside notice we would normally require for tests of fringe notability. The one-off comments in mainstream sources that are quotemined in the article seem to be present for one purpose only: to make it seem like this is an encyclopedic topic when really it's just thinly veiled propaganda. We need to start weeding this WP:Walled garden, and I think starting with this article makes sense. jps (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Religion, and Hinduism. jps (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This appears to be a very sophisticated version of WP:NOTADVERT for a specific organisation. All of the nomination's points are also valid (GNG, primary sources, fringe, etc.). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2023 (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.
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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Advance Design

Advance Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Brochure advertising article in the GRAITEC series. See coi report. No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 08:08, 23 November 2023 (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.
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 delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Advance Steel

Advance Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Hardly sourced. Reads like product advertisement. Kleuske (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2023 (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.
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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Advance Concrete

Advance Concrete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Minimally sourced. Reads like product advertisement. Kleuske (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2023 (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.
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 redirect‎ to Ranmoor with history preserved for a "slim merge" if needed. Star Mississippi 01:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carsick Hall

Carsick Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This building doesn't appear to meet WP:N. There is the possibility of merge/redirect to Ranmoor, but I think that would give it overdue prominence in an article I'm not sure it even needs a mention in. Boleyn (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does not look notable - There is no listed building designation for it and although it is just within the Ranmoor Conservation Area there is nothing about it in the statement of special interest. EdwardUK (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • DELETE - Agreed. Its sourcing is also odd, it appears to be the original creation of an SPA, and it contains some dubious statements. To suggest that Sheffield has few old buildings because of the Blitz is nonsense - it has many, including many far more notable than this, e.g. Sheffield Town Hall. KJP1 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some more information here but I'm not sure that's enough to be notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Doesn't appear to be listed. Some of the article checks out. (William Creswick at that address in 1843. Sales description in 1879 Sheffield and Rotherham Independent as well as notice of sale to Mr. James Ward for £370. Mentions in The Times and The Telegraph as home of Francis Balfour in the 1950s. Telegraph gives Eric Robinson as owner in 1980.) I think there is also evidence that it might be among the oldest local buildings ([1] states most of buildings of interest date from 1860–1914). Also brief mention in The Making of Sheffield, 1865-1914 p 194 ("...Carsick Hall, a small double-fronted house unworthy of its name but very old and very old-fashioned."). In the lack of any detailed coverage of the house, leaning slim merge to Ranmoor, where it might merit a mention. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (leaning towards delete) -- The article appears to have sources, but they are cited in a peculiar (and incomplete) manner. The house is apparently a minor mansion, but not obviously notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two major problems with this:
    • https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/441346-carsick-hall-help/?do=findComment&comment=7893247 is quite clearly how the original single-purpose editor got xyr information. It's a fortnight before the article was created by ChaosAlien (talk · contribs). I don't have any access to whatever "Find My Past" is, and the original single-purpose editor provided zero citations of whatever bunch of old newspapers have been stitched together to make this. Espresso Addict hasn't provided enough above, either, alas.
    • The good-faith citations added later by someone else are impossible to check. Having laboriously found what each one is and digging it up to cite it properly, I've had to add {{pageneeded}} on every single one it turns out. One of them is an edited collection book and the citation didn't even say which article in the book by which author is being cited. Needless to say, not a single one of those sources is accessible to me.
  • Verification is simply impossible here. I've tried. This is unverifiable by any reader, or anyone at all who didn't write the article. Uncle G (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's simply not true. I verified much of it, just typing "Carsick Hall" into one of the WL newspaper searches. I don't always provide citations when I do this kind of search because typing and especially cut & paste hurts my injured hand, but the search is trivial for anyone with library access. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid that it is true. "Mentions in The Times and The Telegraph in the 1950s" doesn't cut it. As I said, I've looked for sources, and tried to look into the sources already cited. A vague handwave in the direction of an entire decade of two newspapers points to nothing. It's as vague as the handwave to a 264-page book (which Google Books reports no instances of "Carsick" at all inside) from 1948 is. If you cannot point to things that I or other people can check, then verifiability is simply not there. Amazingly, all of the people with the claimed actual access to these old newspapers, from the person on the WWW forum through the article creator to you, have not cited one single specific newspaper article for the rest of us, let alone the clearly multiple ones used in the WWW discussion forum. Uncle G (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • In attempting to check the sources and found copies of some on archive.org (Reeder, Walton and Tiratsoo), and White Rose eTheses Online (Donnelly). But searches within these indicate that none mention Carsick Hall, Walton has only a brief section on Ranmoor (p.225) and there were no search results for Sheffield in Tiratsoo. Cannadine and Hebblethwaite require journal access but the statements they are there to support do not suggest notability. I do not have full access to the British Newspaper Archive, but a search for Carsick Hall shows some results that could verify the residents and history section (Sheffield Independent 10 May 1879 p.11, and 7 March 1938 p.2, and Yorkshire Evening Post 11 June 1940 p.5) but these also do little to indicate notability. Delete seems a reasonable option because if all the unsourced and trivial content was removed there would be little left to merge. EdwardUK (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's names and dates at least, more than anyone else has given. I didn't think to look for an in-copyright 1997 book in the Internet Archive, and thank you for the pointer to the thesis, too. It's very disappointing to discover, especially after all of that effort hunting down the proper citations, that all of the additions by GavinMansfield (talk · contribs) were false sourcing. Having seen now how irrelevant they were to this subject, especially the thesis, I have changed my mind about these being good-faith edits. Uncle G (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2023 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Chelsea Inn

The Chelsea Inn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been tagged as not meeting notability guidelines since Jan 2018, with no improvements since. It does not appear in any relevant or reliable news that I can find online. CoconutOctopus talk 22:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote to keep it, it is historically significant to Atlantic City. TiMike (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Lots of hits in Google news, though mostly mentions; seems to be reasonably signficiant to Atlantic City. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (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.
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 delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Cameron Highlands

Church of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Cameron Highlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. One of the reference is dead but from the title is a self-description by the Archdiocese that it's in.

The lack of even "1/2 GNG" sources is reflected in it's lack of content. The only content is a sentence on where it's at, a sentence on it's founding, and a sentence that it was closed for covid and reopened. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Malaysia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NORG. Article doesn't make any claim of notability, and as the nom mentioned this reflects in the lack of content. BEFORE showed hardly anything at all other than travel sites, nothing with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS.  // Timothy :: talk  15:33, 27 November 2023 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Yriarte

Charles Yriarte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. While his list of works is not unimpressive, he still fails to pass the general and author-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable, furthermore, author appears to have written a large number of works and meriting of a page. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a sufficient argument to keep an article. More discussion required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: These can help [2], [3], [4], [5]. This [6]. He was a member of the Academie francaise [7] and his record in the Getty ULAN, bibliography at the bottom/sources [8].Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Critical study/biography here [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the sources found above, there's a brief entry in Benezit Dictionary of Artists, as well as mentions as a biographer in entries in Grove/Benezit for 3 artists. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2023 (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.
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 redirect‎ to Morden (AtD). Daniel (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morden Baptist Church

Morden Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this church in Merton, London, and added five references. One is a primary source (the Charity Commission website). Two of the others are local papers and are short articles of a few sentences. The fourth is significant coverage in the Baptist Times. The fifth is one sentence about the church's war memorial. There is a passing mention of the church in this book, which I have not added. I cannot find other coverage to add. I do not think the church is notable under WP:NCHURCH, WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Coverage is run of the mill. It has been tagged as a local interest article which may not be notable since 2010. Tacyarg (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's odd - I see the sentence you quote, but the guidance also reads "Individual religious organizations (whether called congregations, synods, synagogues, temples, churches, etc.) must meet the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline or both". So it both explicitly excludes and includes churches? Tacyarg (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very clear but I think it means if they pass WP:NCORP that's great but if they don't they can just pass WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes its a building not an organization though the church may have one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prob delete - on the one hand, it is highly likely that a British religious institution of this age would have RS. Late 19 century churches often had local newspaper coverage and maybe well feature in books written about local history. On the other hand, it seems curlish to expect anyone other than interested editors to have to go to the effort of finding them. So unless someone finds more RS we can assess (I can't at present even though I believe it probably exists), I'm going to say WP:TNT on a largely promotional page until/unless someone who has access to appropriate sources can rewrite. JMWt (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Morden and add a couple of the found sources (particularly the 1935 one) there. It's a somewhat prominent building with an active congregation, but not of wide enough interest to warrant its own article. It appears the original article was written for promotion, rather than to describe a genuinely notable building. Sionk (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2023 (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.

Architecture Proposed deletions


Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

Other pages

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Architecture&oldid=1186791910"