Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 7: Line 7:
==Architecture==
==Architecture==
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uranus_building_(2nd_nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Santa_Maria_Murella,_Montasola}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Santa_Maria_Murella,_Montasola}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huaguoyuan Towers}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huaguoyuan Towers}}

Revision as of 18:37, 9 April 2024

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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Architecture, buildings, construction, city planning and public spaces.
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 withdrawn‎ for now. (non-admin closure) Awesome Aasim 15:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus building

AfDs for this article:
Uranus building (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)

WP:NOTNEWS: This appears to be a fail of WP:NBUILDING and thus is likely not notable. I am finding more coverage of the earthquake than the building itself. If there is more coverage about the collapse, then the title should be "Collapse of Uranus building" rather than this title. Awesome Aasim 18:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I just took a look at the previous nomination: The claims of "notability" being drawn appear to be from WP:SYNTH. Passing mentions does not guarantee notability. Synthesis of sources that mention individual facts is not an encyclopedia article, it's WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Awesome Aasim 18:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm pinging the previous participants, given that this just closed: @Piotrus, @Cunard, @DANGA14, @Vchimpanzee, @Great_achievement, @Chongkian, @Brudelman, and @Liz. Mason (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm mainly interested in what went wrong with the construction of this building compared to others, so I guess that's okay.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is notability regardless of whether it is notable from the earthquake or not. The AFP/Straits Times as well as the United Daily News sources provided in the previous AFD clearly passes the mark for "significant coverage" counted into WP:GNG. There's also other sources from Google that specifically cover the building. WP:NBUILDING states "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.", for which I find the building to be passing the "historic" part as what the AP has termed as an "iconic" image from the earthquake, in addition to the BBC claiming the image of the building has been "shared across the world". Currently don't have any strong opinions for the proposed new title. S5A-0043Talk 02:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Articles published after the 2024 Hualien earthquake:
      1. "Ceremony held to bid farewell to Uranus building, tilting symbol of Taiwan earthquake". The Straits Times. Agence France-Presse. 2024-04-05. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.

        The article notes: "Fruit, flowers and incense paper were laid on a table on April 5 as the authorities prepared a ceremony before demolishing a precariously tilting building that has become a symbol of Taiwan’s biggest quake in 25 years. The glass-fronted Uranus building, located in Hualien, the city nearest to the quake’s epicentre, is a 10-storey mix of shops and apartments that has stood for nearly 40 years. The 7.4-magnitude earthquake on April 3 caused it to tilt at a 45-degree angle, its twisted exterior quickly becoming one of the most recognisable images to emerge from the disaster."

      2. Wang, Yanhua 王燕華 (2024-04-04). "花蓮大地震／天王星大樓 6年前震損修繕" [Hualien Earthquake/Uranus Building repaired after earthquake damage 6 years ago]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.

        The article notes: "花蓮市天王星大樓在二○一八年花蓮○二○六地震時，因受損被列黃單，經修繕已經解除，不料仍被昨天的強震震倒。"

        From Google Translate: "The Uranus Building in Hualien City was placed on the yellow list due to damage during the Hualien 0206 earthquake in 2018. After repairs were lifted, it was unexpectedly still knocked down by yesterday's strong earthquake."

        The article notes: "位於花蓮市軒轅路的天王星大樓，鄰近東大門夜市，一九八六年取得使用執照，九層樓共有七十九戶居住，以套房為主，去年底最新的實價登錄約兩百萬元出頭；二○一八年花蓮○二○六地震發生時，天王星大樓曾因牆壁、地磚被震損，經結構技師勘查後貼上黃單，後來經過修繕，恢復原狀使用，因此解除。"

        From Google Translate: "The Uranus Building is located on Xuanyuan Road in Hualien City, adjacent to the Dongdamen Night Market. It obtained a usage license in 1986. There are 79 households living on the nine floors, mainly suites. The latest real price at the end of last year was about $2 million. When the Hualien 0206 earthquake occurred in 2018, the Uranus Building was damaged due to the earthquake's walls and floor tiles. After inspection by structural technicians, it was affixed with a yellow slip. It was later repaired and restored to its original condition, so it was released."

      3. Yang, Peiqi 楊佩琪 (2024-04-07). "花蓮天王星大樓「內部現況」曝光　由內往外60度斜角視野驚悚" [The "internal condition" of the Uranus Building in Hualien is exposed. The 60-degree oblique view from the inside to the outside is shocking.] (in Chinese). SET News. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.

        The article notes: "7.2花蓮強震發生至今進入第5天，搜救人員持續在花蓮市的天王星大樓等倒塌現場及太魯閣等地進行搜救。有天王星大樓住戶回想自己就是因為經歷921大地震，才從1樓搬到9樓，認為住到較高樓比較有生存空間。"

        From Google Translate: "It is the fifth day since the 7.2 Hualien earthquake. Search and rescue personnel continue to conduct search and rescue operations at collapse sites such as the Uranus Building in Hualien City and in Taroko and other places. Some residents of the Uranus Building recalled that they moved from the 1st floor to the 9th floor because of the 921 earthquake, thinking that living in a higher building would provide more living space."

      4. Li, Ming 李明 (2024-04-06). "天王星大楼开拆 老妇冲现场哭求拿救命钱" [Old woman rushed to the scene of demolition of Uranus Building, crying and begging for life-saving money]. The China Press (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.

        The article notes: "大楼正式拆除，对无法拿出家当的原住户来说，心中也是五味杂陈。其中有位老妇连日来重返现场，哭求工作人员让她重返大楼取出“救命钱”，不过由于现场相当危险，每次都只能铩羽而归。"

        From Google Translate: "The building was officially demolished, which brought mixed feelings to the original residents who were unable to take out their belongings. Among them, an old woman returned to the scene for several days, crying and begging the staff to let her return to the building to withdraw "life-saving money." However, because the scene was very dangerous, she could only fail every time."

    2. Articles published before the 2024 Hualien earthquake:
      1. Selection of three sources:
        1. Rui, Peifen 阮佩芬 (1992-12-16). "卅五億元購台中太府天王星大樓 星僑伍培菘投資敲定" [Purchase of Taifu Uranus Building in Taichung for NT$3.5 billion. Star Overseas Chinese Ng Pei Siong's investment finalised]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 7.

          The article notes: "太府建設公司興建的「天王星」大樓，位於台中市北屯路國民黨台灣省黨部斜對面，基地七百多坪，是地下五樓、地上廿層樓建築。太府建設主管表示，這棟大樓於民國七十八年間完工，地上九樓至廿樓辦公室已出售，其餘規劃為商場；但目前只有「金鼎綜合證券台中分公司」在九樓。"

          From Google Translate: ""The "Uranus" building built by Taifu Construction Company is located diagonally opposite the Kuomintang Taiwan Provincial Party Headquarters on Beitun Road, Taichung City. It has a site of more than 700 square meters and is a building with five floors underground and 20 floors above ground. The Taifu Construction Director said that this building was completed in the 1970s. The offices on the ninth to 20th floors above ground have been sold, and the rest are planned to be shopping malls; but currently only the "Jinding Comprehensive Securities Taichung Branch" is on the ninth floor."

          The article notes: "太府天王星大樓曾在民國七十九年間獲得建築金獅獎，它採用的「逆打沈箱」施工法，也是同業罕用的施工方式。"

          From Google Translate: "The Taifu Uranus Building won the Golden Lion Award for Architecture in the 1970s of the Republic of China. It adopted the "reverse caisson" construction method, which is also a construction method rarely used in the industry."

        2. Ruan, Peifen 阮佩芬 (1993-01-31). "太府賣樓救急胡姬芳蹤不見 購買天王星大樓價款遲未匯入 市場關心是否有變" [Taifu sells property to rescue Hu Jifang, who is missing. The purchase price of the Uranus Building has not yet been remitted, and the market is concerned about whether there will be any changes]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 8.

          The article notes: "去(八十一)年十二月經濟部投審會通過最大的外僑投資案-新加坡胡姬集團來台購買太府建設公司的太府天王星大樓，計畫經營五星級觀光飯店案，因胡姬集團遲遲未將價款匯入，增添變數，加上最近太府建設公司傳出跳票，使這項交易備受矚目。"

          From Google Translate: "In December last year (81), the Investment Review Committee of the Ministry of Economic Affairs approved the largest foreign investment case - the Singapore Orchid Group came to Taiwan to purchase the Taifu Uranus Building of Taifu Construction Company and planned to operate a five-star tourist hotel. Hu Ji Group has been slow to remit the payment, adding to the uncertainty. Coupled with the recent reports of bounced orders from Taifu Construction Company, this transaction has attracted much attention."

          The article notes: "太府天王星大樓位於台中市北屯路上，為地上十九層、地下五層大樓，總面積一萬一千坪，前(八十)年中完工。當時太府建設興建這棟大樓煞費苦心，採用沈箱式施工法及新建材，成本比一般大樓高。其次，當初這棟大樓是採先建後售方式，完工後卻遇市場不景氣、股票大跌等，銷售不理想，現整棟大樓只有金鼎証券台中分公司在九樓營業。"

          From Google Translate: "Taifu Uranus Building is located on Beitun Road, Taichung City. It is a building with 19 floors above ground and 5 floors underground, with a total area of ​​11,000 square meters. It was completed in the middle of the past (80) years. At that time, Taifu Construction took great pains to build this building, using the caisson construction method and new materials, and the cost was higher than that of ordinary buildings. Secondly, this building was built first and sold later. After the completion, the market was in recession and the stock price plummeted, so sales were not satisfactory. Now only the Taichung branch of Jinding Securities is operating on the ninth floor of the entire building."

        3. Ruan, Peifen 阮佩芬 (1995-06-17). "標得法拍屋 未必穩賺 最近兩家銀行，標到太府天王星大樓，扣除當初貸款，帳面損失約3.5億元。" [Winning a bid for a foreclosure house may not guarantee a profit. Two banks recently bid for the Taifu Uranus Building. After deducting the original loan, the book losses were about $350 million.]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 15.

          The article notes: "民國82年間倒閉的台中市太府建設公司，倒閉前在台中市北屯路上興建的太府天王星大樓，最近由法院執行拍賣，由當初提供貸款的慶豐銀行台中分行、中國信託商業銀行以8億2萬元得標，兩家銀行帳面損失約3.5億元。"

          From Google Translate: "The Taifu Construction Company of Taichung City, which went bankrupt in 1982, and the Taifu Uranus Building built on Beitun Road in Taichung City before its collapse, were recently auctioned by the court. The Taichung Branch of Ching Fung Bank and China Trust Commercial Bank, which originally provided the loan, signed the contract with 8 The bid was worth NT$20,000, and the two banks suffered a loss of approximately NT$350 million."

          The article notes: "太府天王星大樓為地上19層、地下5層建物，當初太府建設公司將這棟大樓規劃為百貨商場，並在81年間以太府天王星地下5樓至地上8樓，設定抵押給向尚未改制為銀行的國泰信託、中國信託公司，借貸11.5億元。"

          From Google Translate: "Taifu Uranus Building is a building with 19 floors above ground and 5 floors underground. Originally, Taifu Construction Company planned this building as a department store, and in 1981, from the 5th underground floor to the 8th floor of Taifu Uranus, it was mortgaged to the people who have not yet restructured it. Cathay Trust and China Trust Company, which are banks, borrowed 1.15 billion yuan."

          The article notes: "太府建設公司倒閉後，太府天王星積欠的房屋稅未清，該棟大樓遭斷電斷水，地上8樓至19樓的部分承購戶根本無法使用，致該棟大樓目前空無一人，空著養蚊子。"

          From Google Translate: "After the collapse of Taifu Construction Company, Taifu Uranus' accumulated housing taxes were not paid off. The building was cut off from power and water, and some tenants on the 8th to 19th floors were unable to use it at all. As a result, the building is currently empty and empty. Keep mosquitoes."

      2. Additional coverage including passing mentions:
        1. "花蓮昨五級強震 民眾奔逃‧高樓牆裂 中橫落石‧火警虛驚" [Hualien was hit by a magnitude 5 earthquake yesterday. People fled, walls of high-rise buildings cracked, rocks fell, and the fire alarm was false.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1988-04-08. p. 10.

          The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "花蓮市許多高樓建築物包括統帥大飯店、華王大飯店、天王星大樓等，部分牆壁被震出裂縫，壁磚紛紛掉落。"

          From Google Translate: "Many high-rise buildings in Hualien City, including the Tongshuai Hotel, Huawang Hotel, and Uranus Building, had some cracks in their walls and wall tiles falling off."

        2. Wang, Chunrui 王純瑞 (1990-09-17). "出品黃豆油換黃豆粉 解決產銷失衡 十三家黃豆廠以貨易貨和大陸做生意" [Replacing soybean oil with soybean flour to solve the imbalance between production and marketing. Thirteen soybean factories bartered to do business with the mainland]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 11.

          The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "三、大府建設公司「天王星大樓」，為地上十九層、地下五層的建築。"

        3. Ruan, Peifen 阮佩芬 (1993-01-30). "龐大利息拖累 太府建設跳票 董事長陳立興指星胡姬集團購樓價款匯入即可解決" [Huge interest drags down Taifu construction delays. Chairman Chen Lixing pointed out that Hu Ji Group can solve the problem by remitting the purchase price]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 3.

          The article notes: "台中市老字號的太府建設公司最近傳出跳票二千五百多萬元，董事長陳立興昨(廿九)日坦然出面與相關金融機構謀求解決之道。他說，解決太府財務困難的關鍵，要等到取得新加坡胡姬集團購員太府天王星大樓的新台幣十九億元價款後，才可望化險為夷。"

          From Google Translate: "Taifu Construction Company, a time-honored company in Taichung City, recently reported that more than $25 million in checks had been bounced. Chairman Chen Li-hsing yesterday (29th) calmly came forward to seek a solution with relevant financial institutions. He said that the key to resolving Taifu's financial difficulties lies in obtaining the NT$1.9 billion price paid by Singapore's Orchid Group to purchase the Taifu Uranus Building."

          The article notes: "太府目前較大筆的金融機構貸款，主要是以太府天王星大樓向國泰信託及中國信託銀行質借的十一億元。"

          From Google Translate: "Taifu's current largest financial institution loan is mainly the $1.1 billion pledged by Taifu Uranus Building from Cathay Trust and China Trust Bank."

        4. Kang, Kunhuang 康堃皇 (2007-08-29). "下月20日投標 台灣金服 拍賣中市不動產" [Bid on the 20th of next month. Taiwan Financial Services Real Estate Listed for Auction]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B1.

          The article notes: "台灣金融資產服務公司將在9月20日舉行中國信託商業銀行暨慶豐商業銀行不動產拍賣，此次拍賣標的物位於台中市北區北屯路18號太府天王星大樓地下5樓至地上8樓。"

          From Google Translate: "Taiwan Financial Asset Services Corporation will hold the real estate auction of China Trust Commercial Bank and Ching Feng Commercial Bank on September 20. The auction subject matter is located on the ground floor of Taifu Uranus Building, No. 18, Beitun Road, North District, Taichung City. To the 8th floor above ground."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Uranus building (traditional Chinese: 天王星大樓; simplified Chinese: 天王星大楼) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is plenty of coverage of Uranus building before the collapse, so I oppose a rename. The nominator said the article violates WP:SYNTH, which says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."

    It is unclear how any of the sources are being combined to "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". "Synthesis of sources that mention individual facts is not an encyclopedia article" does not violate WP:SYNTH if the synthesis does not "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source".

    Cunard (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep
    Yeah... even tho i didnt see the sources i agree w cunard DANGA14talk 14:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO one sentence of coverage in a source is just a trivial mention, not WP:SIGCOV. Certain structures, namely bridges and tunnels, it is trivial to find mentions in secondary sources, especially going back to close to the bridge's opening. Others, you can't. Awesome Aasim 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I provided in the "Selection of three sources" section do not provide one sentence of coverage. They are lengthy newspaper articles about the Uranus building published in 1992, 1993 and 1995. Cunard (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Building famous in all part of worlds [1][2][3] who became a symbol of hualien earthquake it ended up as a stock photo on the front page of many newspapers. 91.80.26.166 (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RECENTISM as well. Better to make the topic about the collapse of the structure rather than the structure itself. Awesome Aasim 18:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why was a second AFD started on the same day that the previous AFD was closed? This is not how follow-up AFDs are typically handled and make it look like the nominator was simply unhappy with the results of the first AFD which was withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not realize that there was a previous XfD until after I nominated it with Twinkle (I was going in blind). Maybe there should be a warning if a nomination for a specific page was recently closed. I only addressed the things after the fact. Awesome Aasim 17:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that there is this 1st AfD template at the talk page of the article already (to know that there was a previous AfD)?
Ok then. We assume this is an honest mistake of yours (that you didnt check/see that 1st AfD template in the article's talk page. Please retract/drop this 2nd AfD nomination. Chongkian (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2024 (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 merge‎ to Montasola. Consensus is against retention as a separate article Star Mississippi 02:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Maria Murella, Montasola

Santa Maria Murella, Montasola (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)

Initially proded with the reason 'This church is not notable enough (WP:GNG). Doesn't even exist in Italian Wikipedia'. I do think that English Wikipedia notability guidelines are among the strictest out of all Wikipedias, namely because English is a common internet language. Therefore, I am not sure if it can pass, given that no other Wikipedia (even Italian) has this. Per WP:NBUILD:

Buildings '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. Also, are sources only in Italian (or only in a language other than English) allowed? JuniperChill (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. JuniperChill (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unfortunately, Italian heritage listing is not great, but in most other western countries a medieval or Baroque church would undoubtedly be heritage listed and would therefore pass WP:GEOFEAT so I think this is certainly notable. Yes, of course non-English sources are acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here? Although this Wikipedia is likely the strictest out of all, we somehow allow special and very old buildings here even though there is only one source, and that is only in Italian. So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable? This article may not be meet GNG and it is a very obscure place. This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable. This can also apply to Houghton Mill where it is a National Trust site, but only has a source and very few people know it (I just looked up random NT sites that are not very popular) so should be gone. JuniperChill (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable? Yes, of course they are, per WP:GEOFEAT. Houghton Mill is a Grade II*-listed building. I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here? Yup. This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable. That's not really relevant to Wikipedia notability. Others do. This article could certainly do with more sourcing, but buildings of this age are definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Romanesque church probably built on the ruins of a temple, Roman age or earlier. It means a 2000 years or more old building. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Montasola. With deep respect for the experienced editors that have previously contributed to this discussion, I can't find myself agreeing with the Keep !votes above:
  1. WP:NBUILDING specifically states that Buildings ... 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 (my emphasis). The Keep !votes above recognise that Santa Maria Murella might have historic/architectural importance, but ignore the lack of coverage, which is a case exactly anticipated by the relevant notability guideline here. Nobody has presented any "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources", and the best I could find was an entry from an office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy, which I'm not sure whether we can regard as "third-party".
  2. Even if notability is met, WP:NOPAGE suggests that if covering a topic as part of a parent article would improve readability, we need not have a standalone article. It seems that the existing sources have little to say that can sustain a lengthy article on Santa Maria Murella: the church and its history can be adequately summarised in a few paragraphs at Montasola. Seeing as Santa Maria Murella, Montasola claims that the church...was located at the site of the Roman city of Laurum, which seems to be its most important feature according to previous !votes, the church is probably easier understood in the context of Montasola's history. In my experience, this is not uncommon for non-notable churches (and let's be honest: many places have churches that date back several centuries, though the current buildings might not be the original ones).
  3. As an alternative to deletion, a merge allows the preservation of the page history should significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources emerge per WP:NBUILDING.
I note that Rococo1700 created articles for two other churches in the town (Santi Pietro e Tommaso, Montasola, San Michele Arcangelo, Montasola), which have nothing to support their notability except an entry on the local council's website. On their userpage, they write that their aim for new entries is to try to have at least two "independent" sources, so I suspect this collection of articles results from inexperienced editing, and may also need to be reviewed. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also, yes, I think articles containing only non-English-language sources are perfectly fine (cf. WP:NONENG). Here's one I made earlier. The non-availability of English-language sources suggests that the topic might not be the most interesting for English-language readers, but it doesn't detract from the topic's notability. Cf. WP:INTERESTING: Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals and our readers and potential readers include everyone on the planet. Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect to Montasola, until such time as more/better sources turn up (in whatever language).Ingratis (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source: Italian, gives details on the church's history.[4] Rupples (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That source is from a office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy. The homepage explicitly makes clear that the project is a census of Italian churches, creat[ing] a national database of Italian churches. Your mileage may vary, but to me, this doesn't constitute an independent source, and consequently it doesn't contribute to significant coverage or notability. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Montasola I agree with IgnatiusofLondon that as a separate article this will at best be a stub. The only sources I can find are mentions in sources that are essentially lists of churches in Italy. I also think that information seekers are better served to encounter what little data there is in the context of the Montasola article. Note that the Montasola article itself is only a few sentences, not surprising since it is a small town of ~420 population. The Italian WP article has quite a bit of history of the place but none of it is referenced so we can't even make use of that, and the church is not mentioned in that article. Lamona (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested to Montasola. There is too little to support four or more stubs about a small commune off the tourist track. Also, it would fail my long-standing standards for churches, having only one factor for notability, its age. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2024 (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! 06:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huaguoyuan Towers

Huaguoyuan Towers (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)

The Huaguoyuan Tower is a pair of super tall skyscrapers located in Guiyang, Guizhou, China. However, I couldn't find a lot of relevant information on Chinese search engines, perhaps due to translation issues. In fact, the media did not continue to pay attention to this building, which is in line with Wikipedia:Notability WANGYIFAN2024 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Chen, Yue; Feng, Yan 冯艳 (2015-09-21). Zhao, Xingzhi 赵兴智 (ed.). "中国第一高——花果园双子塔封顶" [The Tallest in China - Huaguoyuan Twin Towers Topped Out]. 贵州商报 [Guizhou Business Daily] (in Chinese). Guizhou Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-06-16. Retrieved 2024-04-08.

      The article notes: "花果园双子塔坐落于贵州省最大旧城改造项目——花果园项目的核心位置，分东西两座塔楼，两塔结构高度和建筑总高度分别均为334.35米和406米，属于花果园200万平方米商业规划中最重要部分。作为贵阳未来城市的地标性建筑和贵阳城市经济发展的缩影，双子塔规划时就被赋予了“铭记加速发展、加快转型的奋进贵州”的特殊含义，奠基时更被看作是“我国西部崛起的一个标志”。"

      From Google Translate: "The Huaguoyuan Twin Towers are located at the core of the Huaguoyuan Project, the largest old city renovation project in Guizhou Province. They are divided into two towers, the east and west towers. The structural height of the two towers and the total building height are 334.35 meters and 406 meters respectively. They belong to the Huaguoyuan 2 million Square meters are the most important part of business planning. As the landmark building of Guiyang's future city and the epitome of Guiyang's urban economic development, the Twin Towers were given the special meaning of "keeping in mind the accelerating development and transformation of Guizhou" when they were planned. When the foundation was laid, they were even regarded as "the rise of western my country." a sign of"."

    2. Liu, Lihong 刘丽红 (2018-04-12). "贵阳花果园双子塔开启全球招租" [Guiyang Huaguoyuan Twin Towers opens global leasing] (in Chinese). China Internet Information Center. Archived from the original on 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-08.

      The article notes: "贵阳国际贸易中心双子塔高335米，是目前全国已经修建完成的最高“双子塔”，分为A、B两座，A座是贵阳少有的超甲级写字楼，属于贵阳写字楼的翘楚。B座则是贵阳的首家超奢华五星费尔蒙酒店及部分高端公寓。"

      From Google Translate: "The twin towers of Guiyang International Trade Center are 335 meters high and are the tallest "twin towers" that have been built in the country. They are divided into two towers, A and B. Tower A is a rare super-A office building in Guiyang and is the leader of Guiyang office buildings. Tower B is Guiyang’s first ultra-luxury five-star Fairmont hotel and some high-end apartments."

    3. "央视上演"厉害了我的国"全国33个城市地标主题灯光秀 花果园双子塔闪耀筑城" [CCTV staged "My Country is Amazing" with landmark-themed light shows in 33 cities across the country, and the Twin Towers of the Flower Orchard shimmered into the city.] (in Chinese). China Internet Information Center. 2017-10-09. Archived from the original on 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-08.

      The article notes: "贵阳花果园项目“双子塔工程”，位于贵阳市南明区花果园项目中部彭家湾地段，贵黄公路、川黔铁路和贵广高铁以北，花溪大道西侧。它以335米的建设高度成为贵阳城市的新地标。作为贵阳城市的地标性建筑和贵阳城市经济发展的缩影，双子塔规划时就被看作“我国西部崛起的一个标志”。"

      From Google Translate: "The "Twin Towers Project" of Guiyang Huaguoyuan Project is located in the Pengjiawan section of the central Huaguoyuan Project in Nanming District, Guiyang City, north of Guihuang Highway, Sichuan-Guizhou Railway and Guizhou-Guangzhou High-speed Railway, and on the west side of Huaxi Avenue. With a construction height of 335 meters, it has become a new landmark in Guiyang city. As a landmark building in Guiyang and the epitome of Guiyang's economic development, the Twin Towers were regarded as "a symbol of the rise of western my country" when they were planned."

    4. Xu, Qifei 徐其飞 (2020-08-19). Gao, Linxiao 郜林筱; Chen, Kangqing 陈康清 (eds.). "清晨登顶花果园双子塔 一览"云隙光瀑"奇观" [Climb to the top of the Huaguoyuan Twin Towers in the early morning to see the wonders of the "Light Waterfall in the Clouds"]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-08.

      The article notes: "站在花果园双子塔上望去，只见一束束阳光穿透云层，如从天而降的“瀑布”直泻大地。大大小小的山头在光瀑的照射下，散发出空灵、静谧的魅力。"

      From Google Translate: "Standing on the Twin Towers of Huaguoyuan, you can see beams of sunlight penetrating the clouds, like "waterfalls" falling from the sky to the earth. Under the illumination of the light waterfall, the mountains, large and small, exude an ethereal and quiet charm."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Huaguoyuan Towers (simplified Chinese: 花果园双子塔; traditional Chinese: 花果園雙子星大樓), also known as Guiyang International Trade Center (simplified Chinese: 贵阳国际贸易中心; traditional Chinese: 貴陽國際貿易中心) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2024 (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 Konyaaltı as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 01:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of Antalya

Heart of Antalya (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 general notability guideline and notability guidelines for geographic features (specifically WP:NBUILD). sources in article are primary or unreliable (daily sabah being a government-owned website, so rather tentative). search for sources finds similar unreliable sources or promotions for tourism to antalya. ltbdl (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 14 April 2024 (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! 22:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in the British Empire and the Commonwealth

List of tallest buildings in the British Empire and the Commonwealth (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)

Subject doesn't seem to meet the WP:NLIST as this grouping is not discussed in secondary sources. Randam (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2024 (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ağa hamamı

Ağa hamamı (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)

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, as I pointed out at the talk page a while ago. The only source used here is the hammam's own commercial website, which is not a reliable source. It also makes the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that the hammam was built in 1454, the same year of the Ottoman conquest of the city, which would make it one of the oldest Ottoman buildings in the city, if not the oldest. This has no support in actual reliable sources, which make no mention of this (e.g. see references at Tahtakale Hamam, which discuss the oldest hammams and other known Ottoman structures from this era). Judging by the choice of source and by the page creator, I'm also starting to suspect this was a WP:COI. R Prazeres (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: if anyone is looking up Ağa hamamı in sources, keep in mind that there is at least one other "Ağa hamamı" (or "Aga Hamam" etc) in the Samatya neighbourhood of Istanbul and there may be other hammams with the same name elsewhere. R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The Kapıağası Yakup Ağa Hamamı, often just known as Ağa Hamamı. And that one is far more notable and appears in guidebooks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: I think the comment below was to check explicitly if you support keeping or deleting? Or no opinion? R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I didn't express an opinion one way or the other. I merely commented. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What outcome would you like to see happen?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Covered by timeout, stating "built in 1454 by Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror and was used privately by the Sultan and his male heirs." Clearly is a significant term of use. This in turn points that the place has some strong historical context. You would have thought with that, this should have plenty of WP:OFFLINE sources. Lonelyplanet snippet, cityseeker snippet. arnoldreview? Covered by [5]. Obviously it needs better sourcing, but due to the little coverage there is, which shows it's historical age and aspect shows there should be plenty more sources out there that should be able to use. Unless it's all bullshit history trying to get people through the door. Well, that's possible, but that really requires a different kind of investigation. For now, I am on the little of what google provides. Govvy (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SIGCOV requires that a topic "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This isn't the case here. Of course a business can be found in blogs and review sites, like those you've linked; my local pizza restaurant would fit that criteria too, but that doesn't make it WP:NOTABLE. The last link you provided ([6]) is also not the same place, it's the Samatya hammam mentioned above.
    As mentioned, the historical claim has no support in RS. Even the normally quite thorough Turkish Islam Ansiklopedisi has nothing about it. Whether the claim is deliberate bullshit I won't say, but it certainly doesn't satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY. R Prazeres (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see, the claim made in the article is false. Turkish Airlines has covered some hamams of Istanbul, and notes that the building itself was indeed built in 1454 as a hunting house. However, it only became a hamam after 1923. So that would perhaps make it the oldest building that has a hamam in it, but not the oldest operational hamam in the city. Basically some smart wording/PR trick coming from the website of the business that runs it to label this as the oldest, which we have taken over directly without elaboration because.... the creator of this article is likely the owner himself. Sources published post-2014 (i.e. since the creation of this article) paraphrase about the same 3 sentences found in the Turkish Airlines blog, so I won't bother to list them here.
So I looked for sources before that date, and the only thing that came up was a book from 2010 on Istanbul hamams by the municipality (which I would consider to be much more reliable than any source mentioned above). There are 2 hamams in the book named "Ağa Hamamı", ours is located on page 41, easily identifiable as the book mentions the street its located on. This book gives a completely different history: it was built in 1562—already a hamam—and the income was used to fund the Fenerbahçe Lighthouse. Both the inside and outside have been renovated several times and there is nothing "historic" about the building anymore. The book also says that the building is described in the Istanbul Encyclopedia of Reşad Ekrem Koçu. I'd say that the building is notable, but not the business itself. Since our article currently only serves the latter with incorrect information, I don't think this can stay without a TNT. So yeah, delete unless anyone wants to clean this up. Styyx (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all this great research (that 2010 book is a nice find). I just want to add: even a claim about the building itself being a hunting lodge built in 1454 is undoubtedly wrong, and a Turkish Airlines blog wouldn't count as reliable source for that either. R Prazeres (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the Istanbul Encyclopedia on archive.org. Volume 1, pages 241–243 are about this hamam, if anyone wants to use it. It indeed notes that it's a 16th-century building, so I think this confirms that the story in the article is fully made up. Styyx (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NGEO. Single source in article is to the subject's own website. BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if WP:SIRS is found, Styyx's TNT idea may be the best solution, if sources are ever found it can be created without the baggage.  // Timothy :: talk  23:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clear case of WP:PROMOTION by single purpose editor who only has created this article. - DonCalo (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2024 (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! 22:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trimukhi Baavdi

Trimukhi Baavdi (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)

No reliable sources Sohom (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:RS. It's a hole in the ground. There's no allegation that this well is anything more than one of hundreds of thousands of wells, even if someone famous paid for it to be dug. There are no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2024 (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! 23:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kooi-Ying Mah

Kooi-Ying Mah (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)

Only 2 articles link to this. Nothing in gnews or Australian database trove. 2 small mentions in google books. Fails WP:ARCHITECT. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not ready to vote Keep or delete but want to comment that it is irrelevant if a modern day Australian is not in Trove. Trove is not the only place to look especially if the person is fairly young. Trove newspapers and magazines are generally "digitised up to 1954, with select newspapers and gazettes contributed up to present day (rights and funding permitting)." As an example, a better place to look would be in recent Australian architectural journals through EBSCO or JSTOR.LPascal (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She gets no hits in Jstor. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked JSTOR and from the list I could find, it does not index Australian architectural journals (except for Australian landscape architecture) and the architectural journals it does index are usually UK or US and limited to pre 2020). So I'm just pointing out that when you search for a younger, living Australian in databases to see if they have been written about, you have to understand that some databases mostly include non-Australian reference sources and may be limited in their date coverage, so that you can't assume that a person is non-notable because they don't appear in certain databases of reference sources. If you can find a better list of journals on JSTOR, I'd welcome receiving the link because it's difficult to find.LPascal (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like many AFDs these days, we need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still needs more participation. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nothing popped up on TWL or google. Mach61 16:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per nom. No new sources or arguments against the nomination were presented. Svartner (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2024 (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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghayebi Dighi Mosque

Ghayebi Dighi Mosque (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 to be confused with the extant Gayebi Mosque in Balaganj Upazila).

All the information about Ghayebi/Gayebi/Gayibi Dighi (a pond) in the two cited sources is: "Simultaneously a good number of sites were explored. These include ..., Gayebi Dighi Mound, ... [in a list of more than a dozen sites]" and "Gayibi Dighi at Bara Thakuri (a stone inscription of 400 years old, now preserved in the Bangladesh national museum, has been discovered from this dighi)". Neither of the sources mention a mosque.

The author of the article asserted, "There are enough sources on the web if searched in Bengali". That is contradicted by my experience. The only other reliable source I could find in any language is another brief mention of the inscription.[7] With zero reliable sources about the mosque (if there ever was one), the topic fails WP:GNG. It is unsuitable for merging or redirection, let alone for a stand alone article. Worldbruce (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - there may be some sources available in Bengali language. It says an ancient mosque and has a page on the Bengali language Wikipedia. Bhivuti45 (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion which is typically what would happen here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 8 April 2024 (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=1218101148"