Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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


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


Architecture

[edit]

Annette Jones (architect)

[edit]
Annette Jones (architect) (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)

An orphan article. An unremarkable career that does not meet WP:ARCHITECT. Source 1 is merely a registration database, sources 3 and 5 are primary. LibStar (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Browne

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

Fails WP:ARCHITECT. An unremarkable career. 3rd source is her employer, 2nd source is a media release. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critical itinerary of Gasparo Cairano

[edit]
Critical itinerary of Gasparo Cairano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a very poor translation of it:Itinerario_critico_di_Gasparo_Cairano. It appears to be a historiography of the titular architect, and how his standing has changed over the years. That type of information can be worthy of a standalone article sometimes (see Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music), but only if high-quality secondary sources can be found. Unfortunately, this article is in large part original research from primary sources. For example, the only citation for the statement that There is no mention of Gasparo Cairano in Elia Capriolo's chronicle is the centuries old text itself; no indication is given about why this omission matters at all. The only properly used secondary source comes from one "Vito Zani", where multiple should be cited to preserve independence of content. Zani is also covered heavily in the § Studies and debates of the 21st century section, which makes me wonder if a conflict of interest exists. Mach61 19:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: @Manoru007 an I can review the translation and improve it. We work at OKA and we use translation softwares. After translating, we review and proofread the article (all according to our community validated guidelines), so the final text meets wikipedia's criteria. Sometimes we let some things pass and some parts don't reach a native level of English, since we are not native speakers. Usually we expect AfC and internal revisions to point out flaws and improvement gaps. If there are specific topics and problems in the translation that we can improve, let us know. Regarding references, we can improve, but we are not able to find references for the whole text, since it's a big article and we are not the original author.
Sintropepe (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aksu Dam

[edit]
Aksu Dam (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 cannot find enough recent sources to show it notable. There are other rivers with the same name. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wileńska street (Bydgoszcz)

[edit]
Wileńska street (Bydgoszcz) (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 reason this street is notable, only coverage is routine sources. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis W. Wynkoop

[edit]
Francis W. Wynkoop (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)

An entirely blanked article because it fails WP:NBIO and has WP:COI issues. Somehow, nobody thought about making a deletion discussion throughout all of this process. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well ping @Left guide and @Arch2all to see what arguments they have. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the redirect, because it linked to a page which is not directly related to Francis Wynkop. I haven't deleted the previous content. It is not an acceptable solution to create misleading redirects in this case. Keep the old content or delete the whole page, if no one can create acceptable content here. Arch2all (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wynkoop is with 2 Os; and the redirect (although I think the page should be kept) was not misleading. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per the edit summary argument which is still fully valid:

    fails WP:NBIO, virtually all of the coverage available for this person is paid sources, passing mentions, and questionable sources that don't count towards notability

    Also possibly the product of COI/UPE based on the banned article creator's history. Left guide (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure your general assessment of the sources as a whole is correct but WP:NPEOPLE indicates that persons meeting the following criterion may be considered notable: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;" That is obviously the case here. Your redirect was not misleading (see above) but I consider it is not necessary.
    Also, @TeapotsOfDoom pinging the 2 contributors who redirected/blanked the page respectively might be seen as inappropriate, although it was limited, open and neutral in its wording, as the audience might fall under the category "partisan". I am certain you did it in good faith and both users were not selected for their opinion on the subject but their opinion on the subject was obviously clear to you before you pinged them. Thank you all the same.
    Anyway, despite strong indications of notability, I stand by my procedural SK !vote. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin comment, I see no grounds for a speedy keep as BLAR is normal part of editing. Please focus on notability and not procedural issues. Star Mississippi 11:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But I will focus on procedural issues, though. Please look at the history of the page and of this AfD. And please read my comment with more attention. "Blaring" is not an issue. Blanking a page, however, is not, I must insist, normal part of editing. At all. And nominating a blank page, even in good faith, is sufficient ground for SK in my view, at least for procedural keep. See first !vote and see nominator's rationale. So, as your comment is apparently made in quality of administrator and my input seems to be the only thing you notice here, please kindly read: Wikipedia:Page blanking. It's a guideline. As for the rest, I mentioned notabilty too, myself (twice), but AfDs are not always about notability only and when a procedural flaw is patent, it is relevant to mention it and it is permitted if not recommended, to !vote accordingly. Thank you for your time and concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The history is accessible and anyone participating in an AfD should look at the current and past state of an article when evaluating an AfD (Prod, MfD, etc.) for necessary information. There are no procedural grounds that invalidate the nomination. If Wynkoop is found to be notable, it will be retained. If not, it won't be. Neither instance requires a procedural restart to the discussion, which might be the case if there were Rev Del or other factors that impacted non admins from seeing the history. My comment is that of one admin, you're welcome to continue asking for others to weigh in. I think your (collectively) time would be best spent assessing notability. Drive by comments (not yours, the one you refer to) are regularly disregarded by closers. Star Mississippi 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, if blanking is OK with you and nominating a blank page as such too, perfect, but you might want to change the guideline then. As I've already told you, I've already replied in regard to the notability issue with 2 comments, that you apparently haven't seen. But I'll do it one more time, although I think I am wasting my time with a completely irregular debate. Frank Wynkoop is a notable architect, creator of various very notable works, some listed on the page, with solid references, and he thus clearly, fairly and easily meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) and in particular the criterion I quoted above, but let's go, I'll quote it again (if anyone mentions bludgeoning, I'll direct them to you, hope we agree on that): "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;" That is obviously the case here: https://www.atomic-ranch.com/interior-design/designers-craftsmen/frank-wynkoop-the-butterfly-house/; Dramov, Alissandra, and Momboisse, Lynn A.. Historic Homes and Inns of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Arcadia Publishing Incorporated, p. 8 (quoted on the page and perfectly acceptable); https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/ad-goes-inside-carmels-iconic-butterfly-house; Papp, James. San Luis Obispo County Architecture. Arcadia Publishing, 2023.p.121 ; Engineering News-record. (1962). McGraw-Hill, p. 50; Landscape Architecture: Home landscape, Publication Board of the American Society of Landscape Architects, 1980, p. 164.; etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No concern with bludgeoning. You're making the case that he's notable - great. That's what the closer will need. It's not an irregular debate. Thanks! Star Mississippi 03:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is there any reliable indept sourcing for any works apart from the Butterfly House? On a cursory look I've not seen any. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I remember correctly, the Seaburst House did, but the source was on the Internet Archive so I don't have access to it at the moment. It does have at least one piece of SIGCOV here. The Centralia Fox Theatre has SIGCOV here, here, here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fwiw, I've paged through newspaper hits for variations on his name & architect and found virtually nothing beyond he was the named architect on a number of schools. Best school coverage I noticed was Lakeside School was inspected by county groups (Modesto Bee And News Herald Newspaper Archives February 6, 1948 Page 17) which appears to have a few paras (can't read properly the scan quality is so poor). There's also a couple of Proquest hits mentioning his work renovating Bakersfield Hall of Records (Repository of county records celebrates 100 years of history. Shearer, Jenny.  McClatchy - Tribune Business News; Washington. 24 Jan 2009. & Best buildings of downtown: Take the tour. Self, Jennifer. TCA Regional News; Chicago. 18 May 2016). I'd suggest the possibility of a merge with Butterfly House (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California), including a para or so about his life and other projects. With architects very predominantly known for one building that usually seems the best approach. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A merge makes sense to me. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the sourcing points to the fact he was just a local, run of the mill architect, without any significant coverage of him that would go beyond routine local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 06:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I've looked through the sourcing here and in the article - the best sources basically say he designed a house in Carmel, but don't really elaborate on him at all. The article uses a lot of short, routine newspaper clippings such as paid obituaries and marriage licenses to pad it out, which don't count. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This architect designed a number of notable structures. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which apart from Butterfly House? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To remind you, we are discussing the notability of the subject. Whether the current contents of the page are blank or not matters not a whit, as Star Mississippi pointed out. And once a valid view to delete has been entered, an improper nomination is no longer reason for a procedural keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I changed my vote to a normal notability Keep; but I am not convinced by the validity of nominating a blank page because (see nom’s rationale) it is blank...AND, precisely, the 1st D !vote before my SK procedural !vote did not seem valid to me BECAUSE the page was blank. (See vote’s content).. ,,so that, according to your very comment, a procedural K vote seemed.... perfectly valid. ........ Anyway, I changed my vote to avoid long debates about now side issues...Mushy Yank (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the architecture guidelines met?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Local architect that designed non-notable structures. We have confirmation of this, but architects all over the world design things. These buildings aren't on the National Register of Historic Places, nor do they seem to have any special association with any historical items. The Butterfly House was never nominated for any sort of award and it's not a registered historic structure. We have simply a architect that designed interesting buildings, neither of which is terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8 Clearwater Bay Road

[edit]
8 Clearwater Bay Road (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 proposed this for deletion with the reason "None of the sources are reliable, independent sources giving significant attention to this building. Databases, sources from companies related to the building, an apartment for sale... are not the sources needed to create an article on the apparently 3033rd highest building in the world. Are there indepth, non-routine, independent sources about this building? Its architecture, controversies, archaeological finds during construction, anything?"

Since then, the poorest sources have been removed, but nothing was done about the fundamental issues. If there is only routine coverage, unreliable sources, and database entries for this building, then it shouldn't have an article. Fram (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • My vote is Keep as of now. I'm seeing that you're probably concerned about the WP:TOOSOON criteria in this case. However, the article proposed for deletion can be expanded by other users in time. There is no need to tag it with a deletion notice yet. Other Hong Kong building articles such as Sino Plaza and The Westpoint can freely function as stubs when they are based on the same type of primarily database references until additional citations are found. Maybe the
type of tag is more fit in this situation. JeyReydar97 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No idea why you think TOOSOON would apply to an article about a building from 2005. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a reason to keep an article. Fram (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Artificial features says:

    Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. "清水灣道8號 擬賣地後登場" [8 Clearwater Bay Road Set to Launch After Proposed Sale]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2004-10-02.

      The article contains 1,000 Chinese characters. The article notes: "發展商睇好賣地成績而加快推盤步伐，其中由俊和集團發展的彩虹地鐵站上蓋項目，已正式訂命為清水灣道8號，示範單位即將開放予公眾參觀，可望在賣地後隨即開售。由俊和集團於2001年投得彩虹地鐵站上蓋項目，已正式訂命「清水灣道8號」，物業興建進度理想，已建至逾15樓 ..."

      From Google Translate: "Developers are accelerating the pace of launching new properties in light of the good land sales results. Among them, the Choi Hung MTR Station project developed by Chun Wo Group has been officially named as 8 Clear Water Bay Road. The show flat will be open to the public for viewing soon and is expected to be launched for sale immediately after the land sale. The Choi Hung MTR Station project won by Chun Wo Group in 2001 has been officially named as "8 Clear Water Bay Road". The construction progress of the property is ideal and has been built to more than 15 floors."

      The article notes: "以單幢式設計的清水灣道8號，樓高逾50樓，每層6至8夥設計，單位總數共316個。物業基座設有多層停車場及購物商場，住宅由12樓起至頂層57樓連天台單位。分層單位面積由622至982平方呎，分2房、3房及3房連套房間隔，所有單位均設有38呎環保露台，同區罕有。"

      From Google Translate: "8 Clearwater Bay Road is a single-building building with over 50 floors, 6 to 8 units per floor, and a total of 316 units. The property base has a multi-storey car park and a shopping mall, and the residential units range from the 12th floor to the top floor 57th floor with rooftop units. The area of ​​the stratified units ranges from 622 to 982 square feet, with 2 bedrooms, 3 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms with suites. All units have 38-foot environmentally friendly terraces, which are rare in the area."

    2. Chan, Yuen-su 陳阮素 (2012-12-28). "清水灣道8號 高層平租靚景" [8 Clearwater Bay Road: High-rise flat rental with beautiful views]. Sharp Daily (in Chinese).

      The article contains 493 Chinese characters. The article notes: "牛池灣年輕屋苑選擇不多，單幢式物業清水灣道8號，樓齡不足10年，加上位處港鐵彩虹站上蓋，基座商場特設出入口，交通方便就腳，租務承接力特強，但由於盤源不多，因此形成僧多粥少情況。"

      From Google Translate: "There are not many choices for young housing estates in Ngau Chi Wan. The stand-alone property at 8 Clear Water Bay Road is less than 10 years old. In addition, it is located above the MTR Choi Hung Station. The base shopping mall has a special entrance and exit. The transportation is convenient and the rental is very convenient. The undertaking capacity is very strong, but because there are not many disk sources, there is a situation where there are too many monks and too little food."

    3. "清水灣道8號高層貼息兩年" [Two-year interest rate discount for high-rise buildings at 8 Clear Water Bay Road]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2005-09-23.

      The article notes: "配合牛池灣地皮拍賣，俊和集團（711）重推同區清水灣道8號高層海景單位，每呎7000元起，發展商夥渣打銀行，提供2年利息津貼。城市理工大學管理碩士課程主任兼財經界專欄作家曾淵滄，最近斥資700萬元，購入該廈50樓E、F相連單位，約1300方尺，每呎約5385元。"

      From Google Translate: "In conjunction with the Ngau Chi Wan land auction, Chun Wo Group (711) re-launched the high-rise sea view unit at 8 Clear Water Bay Road in the same district, starting from HK$7,000 per square foot. The developer partnered with Standard Chartered Bank to provide a two-year interest subsidy. Zeng Yuancang, director of the Master of Management Program at City Polytechnic University and a columnist in the financial industry, recently spent HK$7 million to purchase the connecting unit E and F on the 50th floor of the building, which is approximately 1,300 square feet, at approximately HK$5,385 per square foot."

    4. "清8原價加推兩高層" [Clear 8 original price plus two high-rise buildings]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2005-03-05.

      The article notes: "俊和旗下彩虹站上蓋清水灣道8 號重新推出後取得不俗銷情，發展商趁近日樓市升溫，趁勢於本週末加推十六個高層單位應市，平均尺價維持六千八百元，售價未有進一步調升，但較早前所提供的現金回贈優惠，則有所削減，但發展商仍維持會贈送厘印費。"

      From Google Translate: "8 Clear Water Bay Road, above Choi Hung Station owned by Chun Wo, has achieved good sales after its relaunch. The developer has taken advantage of the recent heating up of the property market and launched 16 more high-rise units on the market this weekend. The average price per square foot remains at HK$6,800, the selling price has not been further increased, but the cash rebate offer earlier provided has been reduced, but the developer will still maintain the free printing fee."

    5. "彩虹站新貴 清水灣道8號快推" [The new upstart in Choi Hung Station, 8 Clear Water Bay Road, quick promotion]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2004-09-30.

      The article notes: "清水灣道8號是俊和由承建商踏足發展商界的第1個項目，相信發展商在設計及用料均會花上不少心思。而從開發商發給地產代理的新圖則中看到，新圖則全部加入環保露台及加入特色單位，以提升物業價值。該項目提供約330個622至977呎的單位，少量特色單位則由1,163至1,840呎，極高層單位可望舊機場一帶海景。"

      From Google Translate: "No. 8 Clear Water Bay Road is Chun Wo's first project as a contractor in the development industry. I believe the developer will put a lot of thought into the design and materials used. From the new plans sent to real estate agents by developers, all new plans include environmentally friendly terraces and special units to increase property value. The project provides approximately 330 units ranging from 622 to 977 feet, with a small number of specialty units ranging from 1,163 to 1,840 feet. The very high-rise units have sea views around the old airport."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 8 Clearwater Bay Road (simplified Chinese: 清水湾道8号; traditional Chinese: 清水灣道8號) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For assessment of Cunard's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JeyReydar97 (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what salting means. Geschichte (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: i still don't see a clear consensus to keep or delete (non-admin comment)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JuniperChill (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete About as an average of a condo tower as you can get. This gets deleted 9/10 times in any other town as we've done many other times before, and some of the keeps are also forgetting outright that some of the residents don't want a Wikipedia article about their building no matter how many times the local real estate media hype it up. Nate • (chatter) 00:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whilst the coverage found by Cunard looks a lot, it's rather WP:ROUTINE, e.g. "8 Clear Water Bay Road, above Choi Hung Station owned by Chun Wo, has achieved good sales after its relaunch". For this reason, I don't think this is notable. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'm honestly waffling between weak keep and weak delete here, as the building has been discussed in at least one English-language Hong Kong architectural book (Xue 2016), in part because it's built on top of a transit station and for being a "pencil tower." I don't really mind if this is deleted, as the articles that have been found appear to be transactional real estate articles, and I'm not sure notability is guaranteed here just because it's been in one architectural book. I think my position is that we haven't entirely demonstrated notability, but we might be a source away. SportingFlyer T·C 01:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The book added by Underwaterbuffalo is the one I found, but the scholarly article is just two listing in two tables. It is helpful, but it doesn't push this into a clear keep. SportingFlyer T·C 08:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The building has been described and used as an example in at least one book and one scholarly article. I have added the references in the article. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Proposed deletions

[edit]


Categories

[edit]

Requested moves

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Transcluded pages

[edit]

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

Other pages

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Architecture&oldid=1257435478"