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.

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 Arts. 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:

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 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!} 21:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuba–Sutter Regional Arts Council

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

No obvious ATD since it supports both Yuba County and Sutter. No org level coverage so we're here. Star Mississippi 16:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and California. Star Mississippi 16:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I did manage to find only two sources about this council, but they still do not help notability.

https://www.appeal-democrat.com/y-s-arts-council-business-manager-dismissed-director-suspended/article_bb297ede-a28e-592f-90db-a89ab8848664.html?=/&subcategory=37%7CMusic

https://www.capradio.org/articles/2017/09/17/utility-boxes-become-works-of-art-in-yuba-and-sutter-counties/ ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2025 (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. ✗plicit 00:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Hoffmann

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

I am the subject of this article and am requesting a courtesy deletion. The only notable aspect to my career in terms of wide in-depth press coverage is only one event, and no other coverage reveals substantial public interest in my career - the rest are run of the mill sources or passing mentions. There has been a banner at the top of the page for seven years asking for additional citations for verification, and none have come forward that changed its status. I would ask for the community to delete my page, which I had no hand in creating. JHHM (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2025 (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/2025 March 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Arts, Theatre, Germany, England, Costa Rica, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I mean, I wouldn't want something describing a sexual harassment online, guilty or not. Seems to be enough written about the individual as a curator [1], nothing in the Getty ULAN [2] Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wrote a rather extensive book on the curation process "Curating from Z to A", although I see no book reviews, for it, appears to have had an extensive career with several notable art institutions. As explained above, the sexual harassment items are not something one would want to be kept online, but I see no reason to delete the article otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Book reviews here [3], [4] and was the subject of a magazine article here [5]. The Seawall one is perhaps not as good quality as the other two though. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are also three reviews of Show Time: The 50 Most Influential Exhibitions of Contemporary Art at JSTOR 24242321, [6], and [7], one of Curating from A to Z [8] (to which Z to A is the sequel), one of Life in your head [9], etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Article is generally well written and sourced. Appreciate the nominator being transparent. Boredintheevening (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject's notability is established by his book, with supporting evidence provided by published reviews.Gedaali (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources describe him as a "star curator" and "Hoffmann, one of the must (sic.) prominent freelance curators in the art world...." so WP:GNG is easily met. It's not like a school superintendent in Upstate New York, or a retired child actor who ended up working for his brother's real estate office like a modern Baby Jane, or an assistant professor at X state university concerned about her prospects for tenure if she's seen as a publicly hound, or the state judge arrested for lewd behavior, or a singer who backed up Andrea Boccelli a few times, or even the descendant of the founding father of Chile accused of slavery (yes, all real life examples from New York). In such marginal cases, I'm happy to let them recover their privacy. But this subject has worked for some of the most prestigious cultural institutions in the art capitals of the world, wrote a widely reviewed book, and sought media attention. I'm sorry. If you want to appeal, go to Jimbo Wales. Bearian (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject of the article meets notability criteria for an encyclopedia article per WP:GNG. The sourcing in some of the sub-sections on his curatorial career accomplishments can be improved (and the maintenance tag at the top removed afterwards), but that is not a reason for deletion. The rest of the article appears to be properly sourced. AfD is not clean up. Netherzone (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe that NAUTHOR is met here. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:22, 26 March 2025 (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. Improvements to the article show WP:NCORP satisfied. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RAW artists

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

The subject of the article has no notability so fails WP:GNG and I can’t find any WP:SIGCOV. Quite a bit of the article is written in a promotional tone. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and United States of America. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Company that fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. Apart from the L.A Weekly source which is now a dead-end i don't see any other sources that show that the subject is WP:N. Jamiebuba (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am finding other sources in Newspapers.com and will add them to the article. The article definitely needs editing ("passed the leadership torch" is not encyclopaedic!!), but there may be enough sources for it to meet WP:NCORP. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources (and also found the archive url of the LA Weekly source). There is now enough for this to meet WP:NCORP. I have deleted some info for which I could not find independent sources - some still remains to be sourced. I've also deleted most of the non-encyclopaedic wording, I think. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources added by RebeccaGreen (e.g. The Orlando Sentinel article) establish notability. – yutsi (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree that sources provided by RebeccaGreen establish WP:NCORP. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP HEY (improved during the discussion). Cinder painter (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2025 (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 Wake Forest University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Forest Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

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

No evidence of independent notability are provided in the article or readily found ElKevbo (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ElKevbo (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Science, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Wake Forest University. No indication of notability independent of the university. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Wake Forest University. The three references are all published by Wake Forest and are therefore not independent, and independent sources are required to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wake Forest University per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2025 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoryPhillips(DJ)

Arts Templates for deletion

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

Arts Proposed deletions

Visual arts

St+art India Foundation

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

The foundation does not meet WP:NORG. References 1 and 3 are not independent, and Reference 2 is about the founder's passing. Online searches return only trivial mentions with no in-depth, independent coverage. Junbeesh (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete as per nomination. Fails WP:GNG and not found any WP:RS. Misopatam (talk | contribs) 07:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources do not demonstrate significant coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doodle Kids

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

Fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG as a software application with hardly any coverage, let alone sustained coverage. Notability issues tagged since 2017. jolielover♥talk 09:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. jolielover♥talk 09:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding enough in a BEFORE search at this time to substantiate the notability of this software. There are several mentions of it (not sigcov), but these are trivial or from poor quality sources. Netherzone (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fire (artscene group)

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

Article tagged as unsourced since 2014. While technically the external links and releases are source, I have not been able to find any other sources that might contribute to notability, including while searching for the founders name instead of the generic "Fire". Attempted to PROD, was removed on the grounds that a generic name and pre-internet subject deserves more attention, so taking this here. Rusalkii (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not finding any RS on the internet for this unsourced article on a graphics company. In fact Computer art scene and its sister "Category:Artscene groups" seem to be questionable. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be original research. A BEFORE search finds nothing at this time. A search of the WP library did not return any hits for me. Netherzone (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very cool stuff, but I could not find reliable sources for it. MarioGom (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singing candle

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

Looking through the history of this article, it seems to have been an art project by the Belgian Bains::connective (an archive of their website). Their website seems to be the only source that has ever been in the article, and the article's original illustration was sourced to that site too. As you can see from that image (and old versions of the article and site), the art project also seemingly made some concerningly fringe connection with psychology/telepathy. More to the point my WP:BEFORE failed to find any coverage in WP:RSs covering this either as a feedback demonstration or as an art project, and thus I can't see this meeting WP:GNG. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Visual arts, Science, and Belgium. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: You can seem to buy something similar on the various online stores, but I don't find sourcing we can use for notability. Whatever this stub article is, it has no sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, While it wouldn't be a reliable source, I would be interested if you could share such a listing, as everything I can see on online stores are candles (real or fake) that play music, as opposed to the subject of the article which is a feedback experiment which uses a loudspeaker connected to a light sensor to make interesting sounds (and is somehow telepathic?) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it's just Amazon and Walmart links to singing candles or birthday cards. Nothing useful here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or redirect to Rubens tube~~ - It's a cool idea but it's not a notable subject or artwork. Fails GNG. Netherzone (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or incorporate into another article. This stub has somehow survived almost 20 years with no references and no notable sources mentioning this specifically. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Młynarczyk

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

No indication of significance but potentially notable. Note tag been on the article for 1+ years. I think it probably fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV but don't hold me to it. scope_creep^Talk 09:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Photography, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article has an interesting history to be aware of. It was created by a now globally locked account, part of the "Put Radzyn on the map" campaign to promote the town of Radzyn. So I think the sources should be examined very carefully, to analyze which ones are public relations, local promotion, or advertorial content like native advertising that may look like an actual article in a publication but it actually PROMO. Holding off on !voting for now. Netherzone (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - After going through all the sources in the article, and conducting an online BEFORE search, here's what I found: quite a few hits for this photographer, but they are press releases, or event announcements, and photo credits in various publications. A lot is taken directly from Wikipedia. It seems he is a much loved and respected local photographer, who has photographed a broad range of subjects. However most of the sources in the article are primary sources. Some of the citations that look like book reviews are actually synopses written by the photographer himself, and published by the Zwiazek Polskich Artystów Fotografików - Association of Polish Art Photographers, of which he is a member, so not independent. What I did find that contribute to notability are: He designed a stamp for Poland: [10]; review of one of his shows in a newspaper (which I think is local Wyborcza.pl LUBLIN): [11]; and this article, but it is unclear exactly what the publication is but appears it may be an academic journal, info: Młynarczyk, Tomasz. 2011. "Exhibition "Archive - Form And Light and Shadow". Archives – Kancelarie – Collections, No. 2(4)/ (December):195-219. https://doi.org/10.12775/AKZ.2011.007. [12] and another way to access the article: [13]. If kept, the article needs clean up. Netherzone (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Wyborcza is a major Polish newspaper, so it covering his exhibition is a suggestion of GNG, even if, yes, its one of their local (regional) editions. The "academic" article linked appears to be from the subject himself. I am not seeing much else outside was was found above; I think all things considered he is not notable enough for Wikipedia (only the GW article seems to meet slightly stretched GNG/SIGCOV/independent requirements). PS. I nominated it on pl wiki for deletion (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2025:04:30:Tomasz Młynarczyk). It tends to be more inclusionist. Perhaps someone will find new sources or arguments there, I'll update my comment here if there's anything there that I feel is worth mentioning here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Professional Design Firms

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

Organization that fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV was found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Organizations. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Business, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Art Fight

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

Fails WP:GNG. Besides the The Verge source referenced, I couldn't find any other independent coverage. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Websites. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Events, and Games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Other than the Verge, there are no sources to be found. I can only get hits on various uses of the term. Sourcing in the article is primary otherwise, no nothing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that it fails WP:GNG. Is there no other subject-specific notability test that this might fall under? It's an event with 400k participants, which seems logically notable to me, but I'm not as well-versed in Wikipedia's notability guidelines as you folk are. Aspharon (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG, and also WP:NGAME, and also WP:NWEBSITE. Although it is popular, there is no inherent notability for this type of online event or Internet forum, and popularity does not guarantee that a subject is notable per WP's criteria. Netherzone (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Dallas Contemporary (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review

Architecture

Parbad Kali Mandir

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

This article on a temple does not satisfy general notability with its current references, and has been moved to article space after being declined at AFC, and then was moved to draft space and back to article space twice. Review of the sources shows that they are not independent.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Jagran (in Hindi)	About renovation of the temple. Appears to be an interview between the news and the temple.	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	Youtube (in Hindi)	Youtube	Probably not	Don't know	No	No
3	www.livehindustan.com	About renovation of the temple. Reads like a release from the template.	No	Yes, just barely.	Yes	No
4	hindi.news18.com	News article about the significance and popularity of the Kali Temple in Deoghar	No	Yes, just barely.	Yes	No
5	www.livehindustan.com	About the history of the temple. Appears to have been written by the temple.	No	Yes	Yes	No

Better sources probably can be found, but the article is still not ready for article space.

Draftify as nominator, to be moved into article space ONLY by AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Jharkhand. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to formally express my opposition to the deletion of the article on Parbad Kali Mandir. I believe that this temple holds significant historical, cultural, and religious importance, and deserves to be included on Wikipedia. While the sources currently cited may not meet the ideal reliability standards, I am in the process of gathering additional, more authoritative references that can help demonstrate its notability.

The temple is not only an important religious site for the local community, but it also holds cultural significance, and I am confident that better sources can be found to back these claims. The current sources, while they may appear promotional or limited in scope, offer a starting point. I am more than willing to contribute further to the article to ensure that it meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality.

I kindly request that the deletion be reconsidered, and the article be allowed to remain in article space while I work on improving the content and references. Additionally, I would be open to collaborating with other editors to strengthen the article’s foundation and ensure that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Thank you for your understanding and consideration. 2405:201:A400:725C:A023:F99E:F4C2:22D7 (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you explain how this is an interview? Yes, there is an accompanying news video that involves interviewing someone, but the news article itself doesn't appear to be an interview. And it is explicitly about the history of the temple. Silver seren^C 06:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to express deep concern and strong opposition to the deletion of the article on Parbad Kali Mandir. This temple is not just a structure of stone; it represents the heart and soul of a community that holds it dear. For those who are connected to it, Parbad Kali Mandir is a place of spiritual importance, cultural richness, and historical significance.

It deeply saddens me to see that such a meaningful and revered place might be erased from the pages of Wikipedia due to issues of notability. Parbad Kali Mandir is more than just a local landmark—it is a symbol of devotion, a living history that has shaped generations. This temple has been a site of prayer, peace, and reflection for countless people, and its significance goes far beyond what is easily captured in a few sources.

I understand that Wikipedia requires reliable and independent sources, but the cultural weight this temple carries in the region is undeniable. The lack of independent, scholarly articles on it does not diminish its true value. To erase this article would not just be the deletion of a page, but the erasure of a piece of history that holds deep emotional and spiritual ties for so many.

I sincerely ask for your compassion and understanding. Rather than deletion, I urge you to allow this article to remain in article space. With the support of the Wikipedia community, this entry can be improved, expanded, and enriched to meet the required standards, all while preserving the essence of what makes Parbad Kali Mandir so important to so many.

Please reconsider, and let the memory of this sacred site live on, not just for those who know it, but for future generations to understand its significance.

Thank you for your time and consideration. 2405:201:A400:725C:A023:F99E:F4C2:22D7 (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find additional news sources (or published books) covering the temple in Hindi or just other Indian news sources we were unable to find, that would be helpful. Silver seren^C 16:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete. I was the second AFC reviewer for this page. I declined the draft because of no significant coverage just as it was declined by previous AFC reviewer. Sources were poor and unreliable. Creator then moved the draft to mainspace without following up on feedback. It was reverted but the creator moved it back again to mainspace. I still do not see any improvement to pass notability. If draftied, I would suggest a move lock. RangersRus (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you address and explain the sources more directly then, RangersRus? Because the table up above seems incorrect in multiple aspects and I don't see anything about the sources being "poor and unreliable". Could you explain what you mean by that? As they seem like normal news articles about a location. Silver seren^C 00:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube is unreliable and live hindustan reliability is questionable. Jagran and News18 are poor with no reliable significant coverage. Jagran article is on renovation of the temple and need for 1 crore rupee for it. News18 disclaimer for the story based on legends, says "The information given in this news has been written after talking to astrologers and acharyas on the basis of zodiac sign, religion and scriptures. Any incident, accident or profit or loss is just a coincidence. Information from astrologers is in everyone's interest. Local-18 does not personally endorse anything stated." One of the livehindustan article is also on same legends and mythology, and these news also reads like "Paid news and undisclosed advertorials" per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. RangersRus (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Sikora

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

Contested prod without improvement. Currently sourcing does not show they pass WP:GNG, and searches did not turn up with enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources to show they meet GNG. And they do not appear to meet WP:NSCHOLAR either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep - has a German-speaker done WP:BEFORE? Most/all sources will be in German. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the history of this article, it appears to be a translation of the poorly sourced German article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernd_Sikora. No sources there to help sustain the biographical information and claims made in the article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have revisited this article several times. I've made some edits, but am unable to find RS to show notability. Sikora designed an observation tower and a footbridge. The sourcing for this information is miriquidimedia.de (Miriquidi Media), which looks to be a site about Sikora that promotes his books, project and tours. I don't think it can be considered an independent source. The citation for the biographical information is a dead link. The listing for books have citations that don't link anywhere, just hyperlink for ISBN and hyperlink to the Wikipedia pages of the German region the book covers. I have not found anything on the internet to show notability. The fact that there might be something somewhere in German needs to survive WP:BURDEN --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanos Sinos

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

Deprodded without improvement. Current sourcing does not show notability, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and with a high citation count of a whopping 11, and not seeming to meet any of the other criteria, does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find notability in GNG or Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Per comments below and Talk, the original article has been somewhat improved and the subject's notability is now more clearly visible. Perhaps you could have another look. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : The Gbooks link above shows several volumes either citing or discussing this author, in English and German. He worked on the Parthenon among other things, I'd say these show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify please? Bearian (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is your vote for delete while the comment seems to be in favour of keeping? Moritoriko (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: You say above that these show notability. With this in mind, could you please clarify your !vote or restate your view? Also, some of the deficiencies of the original article have now been improved, so perhaps you wouldn't mind taking another look? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep sorry, I clicked on the wrong button. We have enough for a small article and the items I mentioned in my comment show critical notice. Should have enough for a weak keep. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't speak Greek, but I suspect that we may be applying our RS criteria only for English sources here. There seems to be more – and quite possibly enough to justify keeping the article – in Greek about Στέφανος Σίνος (e.g., a number of books, various articles including this one showing Sinos giving a tour of Mystras to Giscard d'Estaing, etc.). I think we may want to pause and look a bit deeper. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (2): Further to the above, we have two entities on wikidata (d:Q113809331 and d:Q131292844), which I suspect may actually be the same person. If you look at a few of the entries in the first (such as the American Academy), the date ranges seems to correspond more closely to the subject of the second – which is to say, the subject of this discussion (I've depreciated the 1900 dob in the Wikidata record as a precaution). This needs more work, but it seems like it also points towards keeping the article (and tagging it with the appropriate maintenance tags, etc.). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The two Wikidata entities have now been merged (confirmed as same person) resulting in correct display of the various Authority Control databases in which Sinos appears (NB: w:Template:Authority control configured with "expanded" parameter for the duration of this discussion). This adds further weight to the argument for keeping and improving the article. It may be difficult to find English language sources (for myriad reasons), although his last book on the Archaeological Site of Mystras seems to have been either written in or translated into English. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per comments above. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would think that Sinos could qualify for NProf via criteron 1, has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, with the books that I am seeing published. I don't know how citation counters work but from what I know I think they tend to focus on papers instead of books? (please correct my misunderstandings). And following from Cl3phact0's research above. Moritoriko (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation numbers apply to books also. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that the case for NPROF appears fairly strong. Also, in addition to the Mystras book (and the several decades of work it documents), his book on pre-modern architecture looks as if may be a standard university textbook on the subject (according to the publisher, it was reprinted as recently as 2023). I haven't yet looked for more about the older publications, as I'd rather prefer to spend my time on other articles until the outcome of this AfD has been decided. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list of publications appears to indicate notability in the fields of archaeology and architecture. Is there any reason why they shouldn't? P Aculeius (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can see. However, I will say, in deference to the original nom, that it was (is) exceedingly difficult to make sense of or even decode the relevant references and citations, most of which were literally in Greek at the outset of this process. Sinos's notability was very much obscured by this fact (as well as the messy data at Wikidata – now somewhat rectified). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has been incrementally improved. As such (and prior to pouring too much more time into it), per discussion on Talk, I'm requesting that the original nominator et al. re-evaluate the nom based on current state of affairs and ~~my belief~~ the evidence that NPROF is now a valid justification for keeping this article. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foresters House

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

Article about an office building, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for office buildings. As always, buildings are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis of their architectural, historical, social or cultural significance -- but this doesn't make any meaningful notability claim over and above existing, and is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability. The only reliable source present here at all is an insurance industry trade magazine, which is here solely to tangentially verify the name of the company's CEO rather than supporting any information about the building in its own right.
Since it's the headquarters of a company that does have an article under WP:CORP terms, any information we need about its head office can easily be contained in the company's article -- but in order to qualify for its own standalone article as a separate topic from the company, it would need a much stronger notability claim, and much better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to have sufficient notability to pass WP:NBUILD. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear notable, could not find any meaningful sources. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles about designated heritage buildings is something that we should be expanding on Wikipedia. This is a prominent and very well-known building - you even see mention of it in fiction, such as [ short stories] by Austin Clarke. There has been coverage over the last half-century, such as this significant trade article when it was sold in 2022. There was national media coverage when it was constructed, such as in the Globe and Mail (ProQuest 1270450320). Even if the article isn't deemed worthy of inclusion, it's most certainly should be merged and/or redirected to Foresters Financial. Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is a designated heritage building then it passes WP:GEOFEAT. But I can't see any evidence that it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ : Not a listed heritage building, so no listing there to help. I don't see news articles about this place, appears to be just another high rise in Toronto. No real sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

put the wrong address in, it's listed under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. [14], but that's not enough for sourcing. Let's see what else we can find. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy heritage study attached to the by-law [15]. Coverage here [16], column down on the left, suggests there is coverage of this in a book about the architect. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to evaluate additional sources mentioned by User:Oaktree b.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Proposed deletions

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

Arts

Yuba–Sutter Regional Arts Council

Jens Hoffmann

RAW artists

Wake Forest Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

Arts Templates for deletion

Arts Proposed deletions

Visual arts

St+art India Foundation

Doodle Kids

Fire (artscene group)

Singing candle

Tomasz Młynarczyk

Association of Professional Design Firms

Art Fight

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review

Architecture

Parbad Kali Mandir

Bernd Sikora

Stefanos Sinos

Foresters House

Architecture Proposed deletions

Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

Other pages