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 WANGYIFAN2024 (talk | contribs) at 04:32, 8 April 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huaguoyuan Towers.). 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.
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 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus building

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)

Just a building damaged in a recent earthquake. Nobody died or even was hurt (or at least our article does not say so). I doubt this has stand-alone notability, coverage seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. I recommend merging and redirecting to 2024 Hualien earthquake. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just leave it till the media coverage of the earthquake dies down and focuses on the next earthquake. Brudelman (talk) 03:25, 7 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) 10:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep: I agree with Cunard. DANGA14talk 11:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep The building has been written in many other sources (they talk directly about the details of the building, not just simply mentioning) globally and in English-language sources, which are:
    Withdrawing. The coverage Cunard found is sufficient to address my concerns. Thank you Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I want to know more about why it's leaning. Aren't these countries trying to make sure buildings are able to survive earthquakes? Will there be that much detail in the article you want to merge to?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can be erased after 10th May 2024. Great achievement (talk) 04:33, 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 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 [1]. 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 ([2]) 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 keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low Pavement, Chesterfield

Low Pavement, Chesterfield (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 not been able to find significant coverage of this road in reliable sources. The sources in the article are listings of individual buildings, but there's no evidence those buildings meet WP:NBUILDING. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Low Pavement is mentioned in various directories from the 19th Century, two of which I've just added, not to mention 5 (technically 6) different listed buildings on the small street. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Listings in directories are not significant coverage, and having listed buildings doesn't establish notability of the street that they're on. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now added a couple of books that noted during the 1970s, the town council intended to demolish the buildings on the street, however decided the buildings together were considered to be of 'township merit' which is why the buildings are all listed around that time period. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources seem to be talking more about the neighborhood overall, rather than Low Pavement, which is mentioned but not described in detail. The false bomb threat is a minor aspect of the street and doesn't contribute to the street's notability, nor is a bomb threat in itself notable per WP:1E. Additionally, while Chesterfield Market is likely notable, that doesn't mean Low Pavement is notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added another notable event, the then Prince Charles and Princess Diana opening The Pavements Shopping Center on the street in November 1981, another surely notable event. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There need to be sources showing that the street is notable, which means that it has significant coverage in reliable sources. The fact that an event occurred on the street does not mean that the street itself is notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    13 Grade II listed buildings, 2 Grade II listed Light posts, one of the oldest open-air markets in the country. the current king of England opening an indoor marketplace, and a recent bomb threat, I think that's plenty enough to prove the street's significance, but I'm of course happy to let others decide on this. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The number of historic buildings along this street show clear evidence of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We still need SIGCOV to keep an article, rather than merging or some other ATD. Have you found any? voorts (talk/contributions) 15:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I'm not sure the bomb threat or the royal visit (both of which have happened in lots of places) contribute much to the Notability!, the listed buildings do. The buildings themselves meet WP:NBUILDING, by virtue of their listed status. The street is in a conservation area, [3] (see pages 27-8), which gives it both status and protection, and it won an award, [4]. Overall, I think there's enough. KJP1 (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not inherited: having listed buildings and being in a conservation area does not make a street notable. By that logic, almost every street in every city would be notable because there's always something historic on most streets and many streets are in some type of designated arwa. Additionally, the inner city revitalization project won an award, not the street itself. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic, almost every street in every city would be notable because there's always something historic on most streets and many streets are in some type of designated arwa. That is very clearly not true. The vast majority of streets, even in countries with very long histories of built heritage like the UK, do not have a single listed building on them. And you're misunderstanding the argument. A street isn't inheriting notability from the historic buildings along it. The historic buildings along it shows that it is historic and therefore notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A street isn't inheriting notability from the historic buildings along it. The historic buildings along it shows that it is historic and therefore notable. That's circular: the street is notable because it is historic, it is historic because it has historic buildings, and because it has historic buildings it's notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts I'm really struggling to see your argument with this, a street becomes notable because of the buildings and features on the street, or events taking place on the street, there's not one piece of asphalt/concrete/cobblestone on the planet that is notable solely for existing. As @KJP1 noted above, The street is in a conservation area, which gives it both status and protection, and it won an award. Overall, I think there's enough 13 Listed buildings on one street, the notable market, I really cannot see your argument for this not being notable.. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is becoming rather philosophical. For me, a street covers the buildings that stand on it, it defines the area in which they stand. It can't just be the strip of tarmac down the middle. Queen Anne's Gate, which I'd agree is more notable than this, is important because it has a stack of Grade I listed buildings, in which notable people lived, worked, socialised, died. I don't think anyone would argue to AfD that, and the same argument holds true here. KJP1 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've summed it up perfectly there. @KJP1 Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a street becomes notable because of the buildings and features on the street, or events taking place on the street, there's not one piece of asphalt/concrete/cobblestone on the planet that is notable solely for existing That is incorrect. Notability is not defined by whether a subject (here, a street) is related to another notable subject (that is what I meant by notability is not inherited) A subject is notable for the purposes of Wikipedia if it meets the WP:GNG. The GNG defines a subject as notable if it has receiced significant coverage in relaivle sources.
Here, Low Pavement, Chesterfield, is not notable just because there may be notable buildings on the street (and as I've noted before, under the subject specific notability guideline for buildings, even being listed isn't enough: you still need to show signifcant coverage).
To use your example, Queen Anne's Gate is notable because a lot of people have written about it as a subject. If people have written significant coverage of Low Pavement, Chesterfield, then it would be notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment

This is not a full source assessment. I've already explained why the fact that a potentially notable shopping mall exists on the street and the fact that royals visited the shopping mall to open it doesn't establish notability. Likewise, a bomb threat at a local pub doesn't establish that the street that the pub is on is notable. Moreover, there is no SNG that states that having several listed buildings on a street establishes notability. If editors would like there to be one, they should suggest that, but we can't invent SNGs to fit our preferences during AfD discussions. To summarize the below, there are two sources, both by the same author, that discuss one aspect of the Low Pavement (its preservation), albeit in the broader context of revitalization of the area. I would not oppose merging some of the information here to Chesterfield, Derbyshire, or in creating an article for The Pavements, since that seems to be notable. I think it's a stretch to say that the street on its own is notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Derbyshire Times Yes Yes No The source states, in full: "The name Low Pavement simply refers to the road on the lower side of the Market Place – the ‘new market’ laid out in the 1190s to replace Chesterfield’s original market place to the north of the parish church. What is now High Street was known as High Pavement until the 19th century." ✘ No
Bagshaw Yes ? No This is a list of businesses on the street from 1846. ✘ No
White Yes Yes No This is a list of businesses on the street from 1852. ✘ No
Bradley Yes Yes ~ Discusses preservation of Low Pavement as part of a broader revitalisation plan. ~ Partial
Sadler Yes Yes No The page linked to reprints an old advertisement from a business on Low Pavement. ✘ No
Picture the Past Yes Yes No This source is a photograph. ✘ No
Chesterfield Online Yes ? No This is a list of businesses on the street. ✘ No
Smith and Sykes Yes Yes No This is a travel guide that reviews some businesses on the street. ✘ No
Marsh No From the website's about page: "Destination Chesterfield delivers a number of marketing campaigns that are helping to improve the economic prosperity of Chesterfield by promoting it as a contemporary destination to inward investors and supporting existing businesses." No No The source merely notes that wosmething called the "Eco Hub" is located on Low Pavement, but does not discuss Low Pavement at all. ✘ No
Appraisal ? Appears to be an appraisal for the Town Council, but the authorship is unclear. ? There is no indication of fact-checking. Yes Contains significant coverage describing the street. ? Unknown
European Heritage Awards Yes Yes No This indicates that the Town Revitalisation won an award, but it does not discuss Low Pavement in any significant detail. ✘ No
Chesterfield Market By the Chesterfield Borough Council. ? Unknown whether this is fact-checked. No Low Pavement isn't even mentioned on this page.https://www.chesterfield.gov.uk/explore-chesterfield/markets-and-market-hall.aspx#:~:text=Chesterfield%20Market%20is%20one%20of,and%20events%20all%20year%20round. ✘ No
Revitalising Chesterfield Market No Govenment website. ? No Regarding Low Pavement, the source states in full: "The re-siting of market stalls currently located in New Square and on Low Pavement into a single market ground of 100 stalls in Market Square – creating a more defined and vibrant market area. The area will also include a flexible events space." ✘ No
Derbyshire Victoria County History Trust Yes Yes No Low Pavement appaers on the page twice, both in captions to photographs. ✘ No
Bradley 2 Yes Yes ~ Discusses preservation of Low Pavement as part of a broader revitalisation plan. ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment on source analysis. The two sources "Bradley" and "Bradley2" are by the same author and so should be consolidated. When merged I would adjudge the overall coverage from the two combined to amount to significant coverage. Rupples (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point 2: It's highly likely the redevelopment of Low Pavement received ongoing coverage in The Derbyshire Times in the early 1980s. Unfortunately, the issues of the newspaper covering this period have not been scanned in to the British Newspaper Archive, though they would be available locally on microfilm at the main Chesterfield library.[5] Rupples (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The source analysis above while pointing to non-notability isn't the whole story. The street contains numerous listed buildings. We could presumably have a page for each one under WP:NBUILD. Surely better to have the street as a 'wrapper' for the notable buildings; perhaps there isn't enough to say about each one (I haven't checked whether there is or is not). So, strict interpretation of the notability guideline in the way argued by the nominator in this case doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. The article does require improvement though. Recommend removing the bomb threat piece; it is an insignificant and trivial moment in the street's history and detracts from the article's merit. Rupples (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Erm. Just discovered the Low Pavement listed buildings are included within Listed buildings in Chesterfield, Derbyshire, which kind of negates my main reason for keeping this. Not sure now, so striking above !vote. Rupples (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - one of the most notable streets in the town, and on balance I think there is enough for an article. I've added some more history, and if anyone has access to Bestall's History of Chesterfield books, I suspect there will be more in there. Warofdreams talk 00:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a new Chesterfield Town Centre article. There are also several listed buildings on Market Place and New Square on the opposite side of the square from this steet, as well as other nearby streets. With such an enormous number of listed buildings, there's also an enormous number of streets with multiple listed buildings, but that does not mean the street itself is necessarily notable. The town centre is a designated conservation area that includes other listed buildings and would provide better context as a notable area. Some of this article already duplicates Chesterfield,_Derbyshire#The_Pavements and Chesterfield,_Derbyshire#Shopping,_entertainment_and_leisure. Also, all these listed buildings are now just facades whose interiors are now part of The Pavements Shopping Centre. Maybe that should have an article instead. Reywas92Talk 04:09, 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 merge‎ to Tadao Ando. I see a consensus to Merge this article. After the Merge is completed, you can take the Redirect to RFD to discuss its deletion and point to this AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

27712 Pacific Coast Highway

27712 Pacific Coast Highway (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)

Notability is WP:BLP1E only. Other coverage is WP:ROUTINE. TarnishedPathtalk 01:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. TarnishedPathtalk 01:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This real estate is sitting on the WP:COAT of its owners. On its own, despite its architect, the subject fails WP:GNG because it has nothing notable to it other than its current owners. Its title itself is a serious BLP privacy concern (not rectifiable by normal editing without oversight). It would even be a BLP problem for subsequent non-notable owners (and I mean: *totally private* people with their home address as a Wikipedia title). JFHJr (㊟) 02:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS. And WP:NOTNEWS. Point back to the fact that this subject has zero sustained coverage over its existence. JFHJr (㊟) 02:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks like a solid GNG pass, not really sure what these other two are talking about (for example none of the coverage seems to fall under WP:ROUTINE and BLP1E is part of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons... and the subject here is one of the most expensive houses in the world not a person). Will expand from coverage not currently in article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back, it seems to me that all the coverage that is not WP:ROUTINE concerns the sale of the property to Beyoncé and Jay-Z for $200 million, making this WP:BLP1E. An article doesn't have to be a WP:BLP itself to have BLP content in it. TarnishedPathtalk 02:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic of this article is not the sale (an event), this article is about the house. BLP1E does not apply to objects. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sale (an event) is the only notability the article has. Remove the sale and there would be no article. This article is about two BLP's house. Therefore BLP1E applies. TarnishedPathtalk 02:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me if I don't accept that extremely flimsy logic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That... isn't what BLP1E is for. It simply doesn't apply to articles that aren't themselves BLPs. (Agree that this probably shouldn't have an article but BLP1E is not the reason why). Elli (talk | contribs) 03:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is incorrect to say BLP1E isn't applicable to a building. Everything here, including talk pages, is subject to WP:BLP and its collateral policies, especially when it's under a notability question. I'll also note the event is not just the purchase, but amounts to mere ownership, and "events" may last a long time. That's the point of seeking enduring notability in the real estate itself and not the owner, or even the sale, in terms of a standalone article. JFHJr (㊟) 01:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP applies everywhere, but the effect of WP:BLP1E is only on biographical articles of low profile individuals. The text of that section explicitly cautions so: WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals. I note that we do, however, reach essentially the same outcome around enduring notability; I via WP:N. Rotary Engine talk 01:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to ‘Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s California house’ The house is notable- is has a notable architect and broke the record for its sale price, but is currently titled with the buildings address. WP:BLPPRIVACY says “articles should not include postal addresses” and “If you see personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it”. In fact, I’ll move the page right now, so this might disrupt this AfD listing.TheSpacebook (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd need WP:OVERSIGHT with a page move, right? Can't have the address in the title history. May as well WP:BLOWITUP *if* the subject (the real estate) is independently notable. Meh? JFHJr (㊟) 02:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. Notable persons's belonging: WP:INHERIT takes a lot. I don't think this wins. But maybe it might. We shall see. Thanks as always, and cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I struck your move proposal since you went ahead and did that during AfD. Usually, it's best to be patient enough for an outcome. JFHJr (㊟) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And now I've un-struck your move comment, since someone stepped in and undid your mid-discussion page move. Let's be patient and wait for this to reach a consensus. If it helps not to watch, don't watch! JFHJr (㊟) 22:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 1. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 02:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge without redirect of the original title to Beyoncé or Jay-Z, whichever can be determined to have a more encyclopedic connection with the property. The house is not notable because $200 million was paid for it; it is noteworthy that these people bought a house for that much, but this would have been true no matter which house they paid that amount for. It is one of countless high-priced houses owned by wealthy entertainers, designed by an architect who designs high-end houses. Most of these sales get some kind of coverage in the trade papers, and some make it into more general papers due to interest in the celebrity, not the house. None of these things make it independently notable. BD2412 T 03:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What happens to this (moved) name space, and the previous name space with the address? Shall we delete them both? Due to the page move during AfD discussion, there are now two unneeded name spaces, IMO. JFHJr (㊟) 03:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have the tools to remove privacy-invading content from article/redirect histories. BD2412 T 12:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with redirect from original title only to Tadao Ando. The new title is pure gossip journalism and inadmissable under BLP as a privacy violation. The house is marginally notable on grounds of the high price (additional coverage that wasn't there when I looked at the article and went searching: Architectural Digest, SFGate); the high price is in part due to the architect, and there is some coverage of the original owners' use of it to display their art collection, e.g. this spat over a large outside sculpture, Malibu Times. It can be a referenced line in the list of his works, to which "27712 Pacific Coast Highway" is a reasonable redirect, and there is no reason under BLP to expunge the history providing the one line does not name the current owners. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Failing a delete, I think this is the best target page for a redirect proposal. Thanks, Yngvadottir! JFHJr (㊟) 03:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to let you know, that this article recently became active as a result of a discussion on the BLP policy talk page, it may interest you: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Publication of Living Individuals Home Addresses TheSpacebook (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, JFHJr. I found it listed at Tadao Ando#Projects, unlinked it, ref'd it, named it for the clients and moved it to a different year based on one of those sources. (Most press coverage of the sale appears to go back to a TMZ report and judging by widespread omission, that didn't give the completion year. I haven't hunted for it.) I note that there's another Malibu house with a star purchaser already listed, also unlinked and listed by the commissioning owner. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tadao Ando as one of his noteworthy accomplishments. Most of the participants in this debate have made valid points, but I find WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT to be the most relevant policies here. The recent sale indeed made the news, though that "news" doesn't get too far beyond standard celebrity gossip. It could be argued that the record price is an achievement for the architect rather than the buyers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the seller not the architect? The property was primarily valued at the astronomical sum because of its location not its architect, note that the previous most expensive property sold in California was the one *next door* which was not an Ando. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Merge anyway because the house under discussion is not notable for all the reasons stated by everyone. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that WP:ONEEVENT & WP:BLP1E apply to people, not properties. Rotary Engine talk 04:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure you know who you're responding to and when. I did not cite WP:BLP1E myself. When I cited WP:ONEEVENT yesterday, the article was called "Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s California house" and it was full of text about those two celebrities, so both of those policies are/were relevant anyway. Meanwhile, moving the article's title in the middle of a deletion discussion sure doesn't help much. You guys figure it out. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, how would either the title or the content make WP:ONEEVENT relevant? ONEEVENT is about "People notable for only one event" and neither of the celebrities mentioned fall into that category. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the principal undergirding WP:ONEEVENT would not apply to a building that was only covered in the media in connection with a single event. An example would be Francklyn Cottage (where President James A. Garfield died, having been taken there in hopes of recovery from a gunshot would). BD2412 T 23:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If, in independent, reliable sources, there is sufficient depth of documentation of Francklyn Cottage to satisfy WP:GNG, why should an article not be written on it? Similar to Garfield Tea House; presumably also only noted because of its link to Garfield's death. Rotary Engine talk 01:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with redirect from original title only to Tadao Ando; per Yngvadottir et al. Mention the record setting purchase at Beyoncé &/or Jay-Z; likely without the address. At best, barely borderline notable as a separate topic - there is an absence of independent, reliable, secondary sourcing providing in-depth documentation of the subject. Certainly, however, noteworthy in the articles mentioned. Rotary Engine talk 10:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, I am also comfortable with a merge without redirect. I am not comfortable with a redirect from "Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s California house". Rotary Engine talk 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Add: Fails WP:NBUILD which requires significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Rotary Engine talk 07:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Per the various concerns expressed here I have restored the page to its original title. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I welcome this, had I have known the address couldn’t be redacted through oversight, I wouldn’t have moved it. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much. JFHJr (㊟) 00:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an ATD is fine, but the house's notability is essentially inherited and fails GNG on its own. SportingFlyer T·C 16:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. It's only noteworthy at most, with the WP:WEIGHT of a short mention in the owner/s article/s and/or the architect's article. I'm not seeing a compelling reason for a redirect but realize others here want that. JFHJr (㊟) 22:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Many thanks to Primefac for reverting the article move and deleting the ill-advised title. I see the text has at some point been revised so that the intro is all about the current owners. Since I strongly disagree that their names are the basis for its notability and I'm advocating merge without history deletion, if nobody else does, I'm going to rewrite the article, returning it to its original focus on the record sale price and the architecture. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tadao Ando per those above. The current title (the home's street address) is more a BLP violation than titling it by its current occupants. Do any of the sources actually give the exact address? It looks like they're just saying "a home on the Pacific Coast Highway". If the structure doesn't have its own name then titling it by its notable residents seems entirely reasonable, and preferable to giving the exact location of a private residence as a title. But I agree that the recent coverage is not about the home but about who purchased it, and while we do usually keep information about record-setting things, I don't think "most expensive real estate" is really a valid record in this economy, and there's very little written about this from an architectural perspective. It amounts to celebrity gossip. On the other hand we have two articles about Taylor Swift's houses, so maybe it's valid, but it should be at a different title. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a thought, but if we were looking for a BLP-free title, something like 2014 Tadao Ando Pacific Coast Highway house would do it. BD2412 T 12:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reading a potential consensus for a Merge to Tadao Ando, so another rename might not be necessary if said merge is carried out in a timely manner after close. TarnishedPathtalk 13:30, 4 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.[6] 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=1217835429"