Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

WP:DSARTS

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Arts. 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:

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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Arts|~~~~}} 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 Arts.

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Arts

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. The nominator has been arbcom-blocked, and nobody else has expressed a clear preference. Sandstein 12:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams of India

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has been soft-deleted and refunded twice, but it still doesn't appear to have sufficient WP:SIGCOV. The journal article is a passing mention. The other sources do not appear independent. Andre🚐 08:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Radio, Popular culture, and Hinduism. Andre🚐 08:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the second of four radio plays in the Travels With Jack series. Why is only the second play in the series being repeatedly deleted as not notable? It seems peculiar to do this while leaving the first, third, and fourth plays in the series in place. If Dreams of India is not notable, shouldn't the articles for the other three plays also be deleted? Won't that be strange to have only the links for the second play in the series be dead? Won't the article just end up getting repeatedly recreated each time someone notices the missing link? Should there perhaps instead be an article for the series that replaces the articles for the individual plays? Bryan H Bell (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, maybe we should just merge them into one article about the series. Is the series itself notable though? Dreams of the Amazon, Dreams of Bali and Dreams of Sumatra all seem pretty skimpy on source coverage? Andre🚐 07:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right about notability for the series. Looking at the other Dreams of... articles, I am seeing almost identical content and a similar lack of sources. I must admit I did find it difficult finding coverage of Dreams of India. Give me a day or two to see if I can find any significant coverage for an article about the entire Travels With Jack series. If I can't, can you help me with nominating the other articles for deletion? I'm not too familiar with the process. Bryan H Bell (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 28 January 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!} 09:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aviv Productions

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nn arts and entertainment agency - Altenmann >talk 08:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Music, Television, Entertainment, Companies, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mach61 (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Such companies usually stay behind the scenes, as they should. This company is succesful especially with Israeli artists but that doesn't make it notable. I included the debate in the Israeli queue so others who take interest can share their opinions. gidonb (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Definitely feels like WP:COI due to the excessive listing of its staff team. TLA (talk) 05:06, 14 January 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. ✗plicit 01:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramachandran: A Retrospective

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK or appear notable enough to warrant a standalone article. References listed may not be reliable, given they link to a Google Books listing and a web shop. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Merge or Redirect to A. Ramachandran. The book does not seem notable enough for a separate article. I searched online for reviews of the book in reliable sources but the mentions I found were in unreliable publications or blogs or book seller sites. Does not meet GNG & NBOOK criteria. If three solid book reviews in RS's are found I may change my !vote, but for now merging or redirecting makes the most sense. Not enough content to merge, and it is already on the A.Ramachandran article, so no need for a redirect either. Netherzone (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing to indicate this meets WP:GNG nor WP:NBOOK nor any other standard of notability. Jacona (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 18:55, 17 January 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. No prejudice against renomination, due to low participation. ^Complex/_Rational 03:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy the Arts

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and defunct non-profit. Orphaned for nearly a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Ohio. PepperBeast (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wcquidditch, why is Enjoy the Arts not notable, and did you "look for sources yourself" before nominating the page for deletion, as required? A brief search on newspapers.com turned up scores of articles about the organization which was around for nearly 40 years. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (part 1; part 2). Meanwhile, the fact that the organization is now "defunct" (more accurately, it merged with another arts-based organization) is irrelevant, because notability is not temporary; if the organization was notable pre-merger, it is notable now. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am not the nominator (Pepperbeast is). I merely added this nomination to a deletion sorting list but have no actual opinion or comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, thanks for the clarification. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of citations and orphaning as mentioned by @Pepperbeast. VERY WP:PUFFERY too. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Article content does not determine notability". The fact that an article wants for cites or links is irrelevant, because Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. ... [I]f the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter if there is no interest in the article and it gets orphaned. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral due to WP:MOS not having an affect as I believed. I also believed orphaning affected status, which it doesn't. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Source 2 in the list above is solid. 1 and 3 are trivial, but with them and the rest, we're ok for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:58, 19 January 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.

Arts Templates for deletion

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 2#Template:UK underground

Arts Proposed deletions

Visual arts

Peter D'Agostino

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entire article is just a resume. The creator of the article only had 3 edits from 15 years ago on this page. I searched for sources, and the results were mostly from Temple University itself where D'Agostino teaches. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Film, Visual arts, and Photography. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arch of Dignity, Equality, and Justice

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Perhaps surprisingly, there are no independent sources to help this pass WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. Sources listed are either to SJSU, which houses the arch, or to writings of the artist who created it. Additional sources found in WP:BEFORE search are also from SJSU or authored by artist Judy Baca. It gets trivial coverage in a few places (passing reference in a local paper and local visitor guide) but no significant, secondary coverage in independent, reliable sources. One AtD would be to merge any encyclopedic content to Paseo de César Chávez. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that it's surprising that aren't more independent sources featuring the Arch. That being said, I was able to find a few independent sources discussing the Arch, namely:

- A publication from from the San Jose Museum of Art - here

- An article from the Social and Public Art Resource Center - here

- A feature on GPSmyCity - here

- An article by Mosaic Atlas - here (Admittedly, Mosaic Atlas is partnered with SJSU, but ostensibly they're an independent source)

Personally, I think the article should be kept, but adding the More citations needed template and incorporating the above sources. SammySpartan (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the SPARC piece during my search, but Judy Baca is a [of SPARC] and the author of the piece. It can't be independent. The GPSMyCity piece appears to be copied from an official SJSU page here. And the final piece published by SJSU cannot be independent when establishing notability of a structure at SJSU. With only the SJMoA piece you found, we still need more sources to get this over GNG or NBUILDING. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per new sources above, and an artwork is usually kept if the housing institution, gallery, museum, etc., has catalogued it in some form. This is a specific artwork, not a building, and already has enough to pass GNG related to Wikipedia visual arts pages. As for its value to Wikipedia, please note the navboxes which now include it and the benefit of including this artwork within them (the page and this discussion inspired the creation of the {{Dolores Huerta}} navbox, thanks Sammy Spartan and Dclemens1971). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the artwork is one of the few highly visible landmarks of the SJ public art scene. It has sources on its artistry, historical relevance to Cesar Chavez, and local relevance to San Jose. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Cristiano Tomás I agree with you that it is a highly visible landmark. @Randy Kryn I'd also like to find a way to keep it. But can you show any reliable, secondary, significant coverage that is independent of San Jose State University, the artist Judy Baca who made it, or of the organization she founded? Those sources are what I can't turn up, and that's what is required under policy for GNG and SNGs related to art/buildings. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a building, so building notability wouldn't apply. Visual art pages are usually accepted as established with sources from the holding museum or organization, in this case the University mentions would apply toward notability. And wouldn't the University mentions be secondary (primary would be the work itself)? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no SNG for artworks, so it has to pass GNG, which requires independent sources. Sources from the entity that commissioned the artwork (SJSU) and the artist who made it (Baca) cannot be independent from it for purposes of assessing notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No SNG for artworks? I thought there was and, if not, there should be as sourcing to a museum or gallery (which the University would qualify as) has been the standard and used as the sole source on maybe thousands of pages. Better call in (they may be tired of me calling upon their knowledge) Another Believer and Johnbod. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that it would seem that the new sources added above, such as this from the San Jose Museum of Art would qualify. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with new sources as previously stated. Additionally, speaking purely from an art history perspective here, Baca is clearly notable enough and this work is clearly prominent enough to merit inclusion.--19h00s (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Food For Thought (artwork)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. I'd redirect this to the perp's page, but there is not anything about this work there. Searches throw up zip. TheLongTone (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find one possible mention of this art piece in a G-Book but it isn't previewed. I also checked the magazines available online from the library, figuring there might be info in art magazines and journals, but nothing. I looked at the artist's article and I admit I also have doubts that they meet notability requirements. Lamona (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wanås is the leading international sculpture park [1] - any art piece exhibited there deserves a mention. MusicFromOutoftheOpera (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a more apt citation for that? That is a travel/promotional magazine, not an art magazine. Also, that article does not mention this work of art. Lamona (talk) 04:08, 15 May 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, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review

Architecture

Profitis Ilias Church, Santorini

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a church. The article fails to make clear what makes it notable and its source is an image title from a self-published image in a tourist site. In general, it lacks significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources (see WP:NBUILD). Not to be confused with the Profitis Ilias Monastery in the same island. C messier (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of listed buildings in Dundee

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As noted by Dunarc on the talk page in Feb 2020, the listing of hundreds of listed buildings in the civil parish of Dundee arbitrarily divided between sequentially numbered sub-pages clearly violates WP:NOTDATABASE. For the US equivalents of the list of U.S. National Historic Landmarks by state, we divide the lists by state to give no page more than 150 entries, even dividing the New York list between the sites within and outside New York City to trim the list length. Similarly, we divide the United States National Register of Historic Places listings by county to avoid more than 200 entries per list. If the number of listed buildings in civil parish of Dundee is too numerous to fit in a single article, then it dilutes their claim to a gigantic list article under WP:NBUILDING. Thus, the fact that these sites are listed buildings should be reserved for Wikidata attributes, article categories, and infobox markers. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 20:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these six sub-pages for violating WP:SUB to host the contested mainspace content of Dundee's listed buildings across arbitrary divisions to avoid excessive length:

Lastly, under the same argument that if article creator Multichill could not identify a rational way to split the hundreds of listed buildings in the civil parishes of Aberdeen, Edinburgh, and Glasgow, as they did when creating similar, smaller list articles through a combination of manual and bot editing in May 2012, then these massive list articles arbitrarily split across sub-pages should be similarly deleted. In talk page archives, Multichill received criticism from multiple editors for this approach to list creation, admitting that with hundreds of listed buildings in these four civil parishes, there is no clear way to present the content. None of these lists appear to be widely referenced in wikilinks, aside from their inclusion in their respective cities' navboxes.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 20:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing an European country with the USA when it comes to historic buildings? These are old cities with a long history and plenty of old buildings. Lists are more like List of New York City Designated Landmarks in Manhattan from 14th to 59th Streets.

Can you please clarify what part of WP:NOTDATABASE is "clearly violated"?

WP:NBUILDING seems to apply if an article about every building would be created. These are lists and not lists of all buildings, only the ones that are listed. Each entry links to a page describing why it's listed. Lists of historic buildings are notable.

So the only thing left is how it is split up, I have a link for that one {{Sofixit}}.

@Dr. Blofeld and Nyttend: I think you worked on this back in the day. Multichill (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, I cited WP:NOTDATABASE in regard to the arbitrary division of hundreds of listed buildings across sub-lists. Second, you are correct in arguing that WP:NLIST is more relevant than WP:NBUILDING, and WP:NLIST defers to the WP:LISTPURP guideline to keep informational lists. Whereas Manhattan is a rectangular island amenable to demarcating landmarks by their street number, the next closest geographic distinguisher for these four Scottish cities appears to be postal codes, which adheres to the relevant AfD precedent (see below). Do you think this would work? BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 05:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello from Dundee! I would say that the arrangement of the Dundee lists really is pretty arbitrary - they bounce around the city at random, and they often don't use the common names for the buildings so it's hard to recognise what's what. Historic Environment Scotland is where I'd normally go to find this kind of information - it has maps, descriptions and often pictures. Maybe reducing the list to just the few buildings that are likely to have Wikipedia articles would make more sense? Adam Sampson (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. These are part of a comprehensive series of lists, nationwide (I believe) or common throughout the country. Deleting the lists for just a few bits of the UK would be preposterous. Moreover, for US lists, we typically subdivide by neighbourhood, or (if nothing else will work) by first letter: "List of listed buildings in Glasgow: A", etc. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks for the work Multichill and you did creating these articles on listed buildings! Looking through the AfD archives, I found WP:Articles for deletion/Listed buildings in Liverpool kept the list of Liverpool's >2500 listed buildings by splitting entries based on the city's 25 postal codes. The DD postcode area has eleven districts for Dundee, the AB postcode area has twelve districts within Aberdeen, the EH postcode area has twenty districts for Edinburgh, and the G postcode area has 57 for Glasgow and its surrounding towns. I think this approach to splitting will be more effective because many of the listed buildings are officially named with the address, rather than a distinct name of a former business or occupant. Thus, alphanumeric sorting and sub-division may result in confusion if consecutive entries between 1 Sample St and 2 Example Ave are on opposite ends of the city. Your thoughts? BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 05:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The splitting is indeed not optimal (just last week, I added a few pictures for Edinburgh, and I had to spend quite some time to find in which lists the entries were), but this is not the reason to delete. I would advocate arranging the lists by street name alphabetically (smth like List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/A-B), and where it does not apply make a separate list. Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a decision on alphabetical reordering, I would be willing to help. Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Nyttend. Listed buildings are notable and a tabled list is the way to go in cases where there isn't enough for an article. I would rather split the list alphabetically rather than number them though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Strange. When we have articles on individual listed buildings we're told by some editors they should be redirected to a list like this. And when a list like this is created we're told by other editors that we shouldn't have lists like this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless replaced by a set of better organised lists - eg by council ward or Community Council Area. Alternatively could all the tables be put on a single page (not a single large table)? - but this may not meet other guidelines. These lists were very useful in the early days of Wiki Loves Monuments. Although there is now an upload tool linked to a map for the competition, it can still be useful to see listed buildings in an area (particularly in towns which only have a single list). AlasdairW (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for re-organisation – I had been planning to do so with Glasgow. Completely agree that the current divisions are arbitrary, illogical and do not aid navigation in any way. However, it is appropriate that such lists exist, and there are too many to keep them in a single article for cities of this size. I propose that these instead be split between council wards – not perfect as the boundaries can change (though there hasn't been much change since multi-member wards were created in 2007), and there will be great disparities between them (e.g a handful in Greater Pollok (ward) and hundreds in Hillhead (ward)), but it follows both consistency on this site, where non-urban areas have been divided geographically into civil parishes without much objection AFAIK, and on the British Listed Buildings website, which would in turn make it much easier to re-organise the entries with something to refer back to. There would also be a manageable number of articles. Open to suggestion on alternative criteria; alphabetical order is not ideal in my opinion as many of the entries begin with building numbers and are known by multiple names, in many cases it would still be very difficult for the average reader to find entries (or at least, it has been for me when I've had to do so), albeit I realise many also won't be familiar with what ward covers what area either, even in their home country / city. Crowsus (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion was alphabetical order of the streets (which is also not ideal, because there are sometimes multiple streets, and sometimes none, but better that it is now). Wards are also fine but then someone should go ahead and propose the structure, I have no idea about wards of Edinburgh for example. Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @AlasdairW and @Crowsus, you both have suggested using ward boundaries, but I want to highlight that as recently as 2016, the Scottish government changed 25 ward boundaries, including in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, and Glasgow. Thus, not only is it quite difficult to figure out the associated ward for the thousands of sites we need to sort, but we would also lack an easy way to tell which listed buildings shifted into another ward as their boundaries change.
@Dr. Blofeld and @Ymblanter, you both suggested alphabetizing by street name, but consider the two primary use cases for these lists. First, someone wants a directory of the listed buildings in Scottish cities where any sub-categorization method will suffice. Second, someone wants to know which listed buildings exist in their area, in which case we need a sub-categorization method forced on the site's geographic position. Thus, I want to reiterate that sub-categorizing by postal codes seems like the simplest solution because their boundaries have minimally changed, and even if they change, the mismatch between the list entry and updated maps would be immediately apparent for fixing. Given that these sub-lists already include the coordinates, it seems like a simple process to find their postal code on Google Maps. As previously noted, the listed buildings in Liverpool page showcases that this approach is feasible. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 16:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But imagine I have a building in Edinburgh and I have the street address, can I easily convert it to a postal code? Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at random I have chosen the 18th entry on List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/18, which is "St Bernard's Crescent 1 And 12 Leslie Place." Plugging the entry's listed coordinates into Google Maps, I get a matching pin over 1 Leslie Place that Google Maps tells me is within the EH4 postal code. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 18:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, using the postcode would be the slowest method, as the Historic Scotland listings do not include this so it would have to be done for every single building. By contrast, the street name is already in the listing in most cases so at least that would be quicker. For the wards, as I've said, British Listed Buildings already subdivided the buildings into council area, then into (post-2016) ward, so it would be a lot more straightforward to organise them. If the postcode option is favoured by the majority, I would suggest using those lists as a starting point as obviously most of the wards have some correlation with postal districts (I think Govan (ward) and the G51 postcode are pretty much the same boundaries) so it would make the task slightly easier than working through the randomised list articles we have currently. Crowsus (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That link is currently returning error messages for me on both Microsoft Edge and Firefox. Were you able to access it today? BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 01:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it worked fine for me now (Desktop, Edge browser / link created from mobile, Chrome). Crowsus (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Residencial Manuel A. Perez

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, NGEO, NBUILDING. All sources are to news coverage, mostly of crime, that mentions the subject in passing as the location of the crime but does not provide significant coverage. No SIGCOV comes up in a BEFORE search either. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Puerto Rico. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They aren't just passing mentions, there are also the article headlines. Plus the fact the place is on the news brings it notability. People in Puerto Rico talk about the place daily. Jeanette Tu Loca Sexy Martin (aqui?) 19:31, 13 May, 2024 (UTC)

Being in the headline is not the test of significant coverage. The articles are about other things in the news (crimes, individual people) that happen to mention the event happened/people lived in the Residencial Manuel A. Perez. Those events/people are getting the significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merdeka Memorial Clock Tower, Kulim

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILL structure that fails WP:GNG and WP:NGEO. No sources to describe the significance; two news sources provide evidence in cursory coverage that it was constructed but no detail to constitute WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional evidence of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of hits about the clock tower in the Singapore National Library, such as [2], but it seems you need to open them on-site in order to be able to read the articles. I've been able to pull these up [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at this @Oaktree b. There are actually numerous merdeka (aka "independence") towers/monuments in Malaysia, and this article is specifically about the one in Kulim. The searches you linked are for other cities' merdeka towers. A search adding "Kulim" brings up just the one cursory result already sourced in the article, see here. Just sharing in case this info changes your !vote; thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - Found a few more sources to establish notability.

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/ce1b4842-51cd-4107-891f-94cb820ff093/Merdeka-Clock-Tower-kulim-kedah

https://www.pressreader.com/malaysia/the-star-malaysia-star2/20180825/281513637011166 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source is just a 3D model of the building. What makes you think this is a reliable source or provides significant coverage? What does this add to the article? Reywas92^Talk 15:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources each have a paragraph about the place. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what @Reywas92 may be getting at is that that 3D model page is user-generated content. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If found non-notable/deleted, it could be copied entirely into Kulim District. CMD (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Mosque of Bucharest

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a cancelled proposal. Wikipedia is not a repository for unrealized projects without lasting coverage. Aintabli (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, Romania, and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the best reason for deletion. The tangible topic that exists is the controversy around the plan. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said without lasting coverage, which addresses that. If this proposal is still discussed years after its cancellation, please let me know. I was unable to find any mention of it past its cancellation in 2018. The Romanian version of this article is even more lacking. Aintabli (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing to a keep I can go for at this point is a merge unless someone comes with a better reason to keep. Aintabli (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merge with what? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Romania for example. Aintabli (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Proposed deletions

CCG Profiles (via WP:PROD on 7 September 2023)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

Arts

Dreams of India

Aviv Productions

Ramachandran: A Retrospective

Enjoy the Arts

Arts Templates for deletion

Arts Proposed deletions

Visual arts

Peter D'Agostino

Arch of Dignity, Equality, and Justice

Food For Thought (artwork)

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review

Architecture

Profitis Ilias Church, Santorini

List of listed buildings in Dundee

Residencial Manuel A. Perez

Merdeka Memorial Clock Tower, Kulim

Grand Mosque of Bucharest

Architecture Proposed deletions

Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

Other pages