Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture

WP:DSBUILDING

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:

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|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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Architecture

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Community Center

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

Community Center that fails WP:NBUILDING and WP:SIGCOV, and has been unsourced since 2008. This article was also PRODed back in 2008, which was withdrawn for an AFD that never happened. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. From what little I've found online it looks to be a non-notable local building. Golem08 (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Newspapers.com seems to draw a blank, which is where I would expect to find any coverage if it existed. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:30, 22 April 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 delete‎. The "keeps" are unsubstantiated by evidence in this AfD - if !voters find sources that conclusively demonstrate SIGCOV, they need to be provided here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Shaftel

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show they pass GNG. The two obits are paid spots. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I can find is brief mentions of him in real estate notices as the architect of a house or housing estate, and brief quotes from him about the features of his designs. None of this amounts to the significant coverage needed for WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE notability. And his academic position does not have any evidence of WP:PROF notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than a trivial amount of mentions in older architectural magazines [1], book mentions [2]. Clicking on the Gbooks link above brings up many mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link appears from its thumbnail to be a business directory and does not allow me to see more than the thumbnail. Your second is exactly the sort of thing I meant by "brief mentions of him in real estate notices as the architect of a house or housing estate"; I do not think it constitutes in-depth coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that if you just click on "Find Sources" on this nomination template, several options are there to find the sources. — Maile (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 12 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!} 23:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Eppstein, and own search. did not find significant coverage to establish GNG or NCREATIVE. Would be helpful if keep !voters could link some of the coverage they allude to. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:45, 23 April 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 Marriott Hotels & Resorts. ✗plicit 14:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lagos Marriott Hotel

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

A non-notable chain hotel. If we're applying WP:NCORP to it, it fails since all the coverage of it is WP:ORGTRIV, press release-driven news about its opening. If we apply WP:NBUILDING, what's required is significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. We don't have that for this. Searching for additional sources beyond the two in the article, which read like regurgitated press releases, I find only WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA sources that do not appear independent from the hotel ([3], [4], plus material that is over-the-top WP:PROMO like [5] and [6]) or hospitality industry WP:TRADES publications ([7]). What I don't see is anything that's explains why this Marriott is anything other than a WP:ROTM corporate hotel. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and Nigeria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to Marriott Hotels & Resorts or other suitable page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not mentioned on that page but if it is added I have no objection to a redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Marriott Hotels & Resorts, which is probably one of the most notable hotel chains in the world, with 608 locations around the globe. The Lagos Marriott Hotel opened in 2021. — Maile (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marriott Hotels & Resorts – Per above. Svartner (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marriott Hotels & Resorts: as an ATD. Sources that turn up from my end are not independent enough to meet NCORP. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:09, 6 April 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Bacon

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

I created this article at the request of the Women in Red project. User:Billsmith60 doesn’t think she is notable but their own WP:AFD submission was incorrectly formatted so I am bringing it here myself for the community to decide. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Architecture. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lead architect on several notable projects and clearly of high standing in her profession. PamD 07:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (as per my comments on article Talk page; I am grateful to user:Theroadislong for their assistance in reopening my proposal): this looks like a clear candidate for deletion. Being nominated for a professional award does not make someone notable. All sources cited are from professional journals or merely Companies House regarding her business interests. She is known only within that professional sector (architecture). Notwithstanding improvements to address the lack of articles on women, Wikipedia rules have to be adhered to: if this article stays, every British managing partner in a business will want one Billsmith60 (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing is sourced to Companies House and she seems to easily pass WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable, sources independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate and full name were sourced to CH. I found an alternative source for her name whi h does not include birthdate, now removed. PamD 17:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NARCHITECT as the lead architect on multiple notable buildings/projects. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pam and Dclemens1971. (As an aside, my search on the British Newspaper Archive shows another Joanna Bacon, an actress, who is probably also notable.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above. Sufficient evidence of encyclopedic notability for a reasonably noted architect. BD2412 T 00:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Established notability by meeting WP:NARCHITECT based on several public projects.Darkm777 (talk) 03:22, 18 April 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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 12:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial College Halls of Residence

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

Little on the page to suggest that this topic has independent notability outside of Imperial College London. Suggest at best it could be merged because of WP:NOTEVERYTHING but also suspect that detailed guff about student accommodation is unlikely to be notable even there. JMWt (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose At least two of the current halls of residence and one former hall discussed in the article are notable as listed buildings per WP:GEOFEAT:

"Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable."

There is also evidence of notability for other halls, with significant coverage in the Evening Standard and ITV News, as well as in the trade magazine The Construction Index. That much of the page is sourced back to Imperial does not affect notability. Robminchin (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as listed buildings per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need for a separate article about student accommodation. Beside that, it looks rather promotional due to the fact that most of the sources are related to the subject. The Banner talk 17:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I looked at this before and felt it needed some thought. Sadly my thoughts are lacking. So he issue is that the only real claim to notability is for those halls that are listed buildings. But they are notable for the building and not the function. If the university divested itself of these buildings, they would remain notable as listed buildings. So there is a case for splitting out those buildings into their own article, but the rest should be merged back into the university. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:42, 15 April 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 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. ✗plicit 14:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Coins

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

Article is based on a single, primary source. There doesn't appear to be any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that would establish notability to warrant a standalone article. Dfadden (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Australia. Dfadden (talk) 11:56, 3 April 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 Vlastimil Koubek. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Willoughby Condominium

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

Lacks notability and appears like self-promotion MrTaxes (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete a run-of-the-mill high-rise. There's no actual claim to notability given and the coverage is local. Mangoe (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just your average random skyscraper in the outskirts of the District of Colombia. The coverage is all local and I am questioning the notability. An editor from Mars (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vlastimil Koubek, the architect, where the project is already mentioned.Djflem (talk) 01:46, 8 April 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 Aranmula. asilvering (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aranmula Palace

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

The article has been subject to several AfDs under multiple titles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aranmula Kottaram and the much older Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aranmula palace). The article has weak sourcing and search results turn almost none that can demonstrate wp:notability. Recommend redirection to Aranmula as with the most recent AfD (that was closed three months ago!). Please note that the author's edits mostly revolve around promoting the palace as a standalone article. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Royalty and nobility, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What with Aranmula palace (AfD discussion), Aranmula Kottaram (AfD discussion), Aranmula Mangattu Palace, Aranmula Vadake Kottaram (Northern Palace), Aranmula Palace (Aranmula Palace), Aranmula Palace (Aranmula Kottaram), Aranmula Pala (Aranmula Kotta), Draft:Aranmula Kottaram, Draft:Aranmula Mangattu Kottaram, and Aranmula Mangattu Kottaram it is becoming hard to keep track. It doesn't help that the articles don't clarify which of these is the real Kottaram. Uncle G (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, The malayalam word 'kottaram' means Palace in english language. vadake kottaram is the name of palace. There was another big palace in aranmula known as 'Valiya kottaram'(Meaning-big palace). when valiya kottaram demolished on 1985, last king moved to Vadakke kottaram and continued to live there until 2008.then he left aranmula and died last year. The malayalam word 'vadakke' means northen in english language. After 5 yeas research,in the book 'Aranmula Ithihyavum Charithra Sathyangalum' Written By K P Sreeranganadhan, he mentioned in page 418 that he have proofs that showing vadakke kottaram renovated in 1910 and got approval from kerala ruled king. Since aranmula dynasty don't had any ruling privilege's, and it is a small village, it is not mentioned much in history. However, in the book Kerala A Journey in Time Part II: Kingdom Of Cochin & Thekamkoor Rajyam; People Places and Potpourr, written by George Abraham, also describes Aranmula palace belongs to Thekumkoor dynasy. Article's about aranmula kottaram is there in news channel is also added in references. I don't know how to vote for 'keep' this article. i couldn't find any 'keep' button. yes to protect this page, I have done some small mistakes. I have created a page on 2009 in wikipedia and from 2018-2021 onwards, this page is targeted and attacked. it is mentioned that the article has been subject to several AfDs. it was for the first page and it is deleted by some one without even informing me. Sorry to say You people didnot take any action against user who do vandalism. I have recreated this page and Now again.. Please keep in mind that there are lot of treasures in world like this which are not recorded properly in history. I have spend a lot of time and effort. I had enough mental stress due to this page and not anymore. If you think this is fake, you may delete this. You can delete only Wikipedia page but not the real palace which will remain in Aranmula for ever.
Thanks Ajithchandra (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. If this is a duplicate of another article, then it could be redirected there, but in the absence of a better redirect target, the town article is the most appropriate. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not duplicate. This is recreated page when someone targeted and deleted first page after continuous vandalism. You may ask why i didnt reported. First of all, i am not a wikpedia expert. I have reported it in edit history and to some people who tagged for deletion. After reading my reply, they all just left instead of providing support. I tried to go through the help but to be honest, it was very confusing and there is no simple steps to follow. So i did what i can do. What else i am suppose to do when there is no support from wiki experts? Ajithchandra (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both this article and the equally poorly sourced page Aranmula Mangattu Palace to Aranmula. I agree with the user above that it's becoming hard to keep track of the drafts and all the similar pages. Keivan.f^Talk 19:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is genuine article and the authenticity is proved in the books mentioned in reference. This article is also useful for people who are searching about Aranmula. The malayalam word 'kottaram' means Palace in English language. vadake kottaram is the name of palace.. After 5 yeas research, in the book 'Aranmula Ithihyavum Charithra Sathyangalum' Written By K P Sreeranganadhan, he mentioned in page 418 that he have proofs that showing vadakke kottaram renovated in 1910 and got approval from Kerala ruled king. Since Aranmula dynasty don't had any ruling privilege's, and it is a small village, it is not mentioned much in history. However, in the book Kerala A Journey in Time Part II: Kingdom Of Cochin & Thekamkoor Rajyam; People Places and Potpourr, written by George Abraham, also describes Aranmula palace belongs to Thekumkoor dynasty. Article's about aranmula kottaram is there in the news is also added in references.Ajithchandra (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware of what was happening, but now I have a clear picture. The original page was created in 2009. The issues with this page began when a user, Arjunvishnu2000, along with another user, repeatedly attempted to change its content to "Mangattu Palace" (a different building near this palace) from 2018 to 2024. Every time I reverted their edits, they change it again after 2–3 months. I was so frustrated that I even tried creating a separate page for Mangattu Palace, hoping they would stop the vandalism and work on that page instead. However, when their repeated edit attempts failed, they then tried multiple times to have this page deleted. I did not receive any notifications about these actions until December 2024. I was also unaware that the original page had been redirected. One day, when I searched for it, I couldn't find it. As a result, I recreated the page, thinking the original content was lost.
  If you check the edit histories, you can clearly understand this. Unfortunately, it now seems that admins are protecting the page of user responsible for the vandalism while attempting to remove the real page. Ajithchandra (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This palace still exists in Aranmula and serves as a valuable reference for those interested in building a Nalukettu-style house. I believe this page should remain to inform those who are not familiar with Aranmula. vasu44 (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Which Kottaram is the real Kottaram? Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book mentioned says, in toto, 10 words on this subject: "The Thkkumku royal family had several palaces, including Aranmula Palace". Clearly, even the article creator cannot give a simple verifiable statement of which Kottaram is the real Kottaram, given that there are 2 different buildings across a host of articles, and no decent sourcing. One has to appreciate, also, the new anonymous web-log purported source dated the very day that Ajithchandra weighed into this discussion, tagged with "wikipedia" at the bottom. Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aranmula. This article fails WP:GNG. A standalone article about the palace cannot be justified with the sources presented.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aranmula Palace, also known as Aranmula Kottaram, is a historic palace in Kerala, India, built over 200 years ago. It exemplifies traditional Kerala architecture, specifically the Nalukettu style, reflecting the region's cultural heritage. The palace holds significant cultural and religious importance, serving as a key site during the Thiruvabharana Khosha Yatra, a sacred procession associated with the Sabarimala Temple. Its proximity to the Aranmula Parthasarathy Temple and the Pamba River further enhances its historical relevance. These factors demonstrate the palace's notable historical and cultural significance, aligning with Wikipedia's notability guidelines on GNG.Maltuguom (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aranmula: Kerala Heritage might be the best source and it's a single paragraph. The other sources appear to be a mix of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, WP:USERGENERATED sources, WP:SPS and unreliable sources. The "keep" arguments above are unconvincing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aranmula Appears to be a tourist-like article with little sourcing. I don't se how this particular location is notable for a lone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:42, 8 April 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 no consensus‎. Strong arguments on both sides, with a numerical majority for the Delete side, but not to the point of even a rough consensus. Owen× ☎ 13:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Sinai South Nassau

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

There is nothing indicating this hospital is notable. This article has not been improved since it was created nearly a decade ago. The corporation fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. An alternative would be to have it redirected to its parent corporation, Mount Sinai Health System. Aneirinn (talk)

Oppose. Firstly, NCORP is the wrong criteria for physical structures like hospitals. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE, because a quick search shows clearly that the hospital has significant third party news coverage [8][9] (and that's just the first two results). WP:ATD demands at least a suggestion to merge to the parent health system, but the hospital itself is notable. oknazevad (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitals in the United States are corporations, this is a well known fact. This one particularly is a nonprofit corporation, so WP:NCORP, which applies to corporations and organizations, does apply. The WP:DOGBITESMAN routine coverage and press release that is mentioned above from your "quick search" does not do anything to contribute to its notability. Per WP:NOTADVERTISING, " Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." The nomination has been changed to reflect the possible alternative to deletion. Aneirinn (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is an article about the company the runs it, or is it about the facility? Northern of those are "dog bites man" unless you think every news story that's not a national headline is such (and they're not, by longstanding consensus that local news contributes to notability). oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, it is commonplace for hospitals to operate as their own entities, for tax purposes. Aneirinn (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address my question. oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you did not read WP:NCORP before publishing the above statements. If you read WP:NCORP, you would discover that WP:NCORP explicitly mentions hospitals in the guideline. Aneirinn (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Medicine, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Merge >>>Mount Sinai Health System (location, history, size). Djflem (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States. Aneirinn (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree NCORP is not the correct guideline here - the sources presented above are more about the building itself than a specific business, and the corporation/business would be Mount Sinai, not the specific hospital. Operating as its own entity for "tax" reasons isn't really why we have NCORP. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hospital itself is its own corporate entity. That is how it is structured in large companies that own hospitals in the United States that are variously known as "health systems" or hospital networks. Thus WP:NCORP is applicable. It is also without a doubt an organization, which WP:NCORP concerns. Aneirinn (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article even refers to what the hospital complex was before Mount Sinai took over. The article is clearly about the complex. SportingFlyer T·C 00:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP even explicitly states "This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, political parties, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, for-profit educational institutions or organizations, etc." Aneirinn (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well we also have WP:NBUILDING, which simply requires WP:GNG. Considering this is clearly an article on the building and not on the business, since it covers the building throughout its organisational history including as a former independent hospital, we don't need to apply the higher standard. I can't access historical American newspapers at the moment, but I bet it should be easy to find coverage from 1928. SportingFlyer T·C 04:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is severely lacking in significant coverage, one of the integral requirements for WP:GNG. It is a list of its name changes. Hospitals are not inherently notable for being located in New York, this one is certainly not. Aneirinn (talk) 23:48, 3 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!} 22:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has been there since 2016. Poorly sourced, does not look particularly notable and seems like a directory or random trivia on a building. Ramos1990 (talk)
Delete: This isn't the Mayo Clinic or the Hopitaux de Paris, it's just a run of the mill US hospital. The building might be notable, but doesn't appear to be. I can only find things about it being bought by the Mount Sinai group. I don't see notability and the sourcing used doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the more recent comments favoring a Delete !vote appear to be on the money. This article is from over 9 years ago and there does not appear to be any sigcov to further cement notability here. That isn't likely to change any time soon. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you look at local news from in and around Long Island there are several articles discussing the expansion that has occurred and will continue into the near future at this hospital. I added the section regarding the new ER and soon to be added pavilion. I'm sure there will be added services into this new space and more to add to this article. At the very least the deletion could be delayed to see where the hospital goes. Cactusyield (talk) 01:02, 6 April 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 merge‎ to Tesla Energy. which seems to have the edge on a target. The consensus to merge is a clear one, and the final decision on where can be modified editorially. Star Mississippi 11:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla house

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

Does not appear to be an official prototype (vs Cybercab) or proposed product other than appearance at a couple random shows. Not significant coverage to support notability on its own. Could just be mention in Tesla Energy. ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This prototype/concept has been shown in numerous Australia cities and at two LA Auto Show. Wikipedia has many pages of prototype/concept products. Wikipedia does not exclude prototypes, upcoming products if they are noteworthy. This is noteworthy prototype, not from some small un-noteworthy company.

If you deleted this page you need to remove other prototype/concept pages (go remove these first):

WikiHouse Not a product - go remove in first!
Xanadu Houses
Futuro
Edison Portland Cement house
Volvo VESC
Porsche 989
Pontiac Club de Mer
Pontiac Bonneville Special
Mercedes-Benz C111
Mazda Suitcase Car
Airbus CityAirbus
Big Mac (computer)
City of Everett (aircraft)
Fiat ESVs
Lanchester petrol-electric car
Pacerailer
Single-hole cassette
Xerox NoteTaker
Yehudi lights

and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telecineguy (talk • contribs)

Note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a very convincing arguement. Need to show the merits of this particular subject and whether it meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing a clear GNG pass - the sources are all promotional or are about a different house. (I actually thought this was going to be an ill advised AfD about the house in Smiljan.) SportingFlyer T·C 02:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 19:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with either Tesla, Inc or if they have more than one product that never made it out of concept/prototyping, perhaps that should be a standalone article. Brenae wafato (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources listed in the article are promotional. The recently added source from "gatorrated" is an unreliable blog post with what appears to be an AI generated image that only exists on the blog. I am not seeing any developments on the tesla house since ~2018.

Agree with Zala that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument to keep. Many of the articles listed by telecineguy are well-sourced and establish the notability of their subjects with independent, non-promotional material (e.g. City of Everett (aircraft)) not to mention many led to actual products.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ WikiHouse is not a product, why are you not marking it "Delete"? This is not a AI generated image. It was shown at two LA auto shows and in many Australia cities.Telecine Guy (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so, I did a strikethrough on your duplicitous "Keep" since you already have that above. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not every product made by Tesla is notable, especially if it's just a prototype. Bearian (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a fair bit of coverage of its tour of Australia when I search for "Tesla tiny house", eg this article in Architect Magazine [10]. Whether it's enough for an independent article, or whether it could be merged to Tesla, Inc. (where it currently isn't mentioned at all), I'm not sure. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's better to look for new sources as RebeccaGreen already did and the one from Architecmagazine is a decent one. I also found and added CNET https://www.cnet.com/home/electric-vehicles/tesla-tows-tiny-house-around-australia-with-model-x/, PCmag https://uk.pcmag.com/science-space/90704/tesla-is-touring-australia-with-a-tiny-house, Mashable https://mashable.com/article/tesla-tiny-house-solar-energy. Unicorbia (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are more sources, and I don't want to spam with them here. Also, one should google "Tesla tiny house" instead of "Tesla house" Unicorbia (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion as to keep or not, but feel the info should be merged somewhere if not straight up kept. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are some calls to merge the article, but I don't think there's enough input to see a consensus for that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone been able to find articles that show notability? The brief time period where tesla showed off a prototype (summer/fall 2017) has quite a few in reliable sources, but most just say the tiny house was on tour and maybe give a brief description of the Tesla products included (Tesla solar Tesla battery Tesla model X Tesla electronics etc.). This just seems like tesla was promoting their available products, not truly developing a tiny home for production. There is not much in the way of continued coverage, and more recent articles tend to point back to events 2017.

Politifact covered recent social media posts claiming that Elon Musk was building a low cost house and stated there is not evidence and that the 2017 house was "only a model." Sticking with my earlier vote.

From what I've seen, I'd argue this was more of an event than a true prototype. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found a review from 2021-2022 on Fatherly https://www.fatherly.com/gear/elon-musk-boxabl-house. It provides some details and general comparison and so on. Might be good for notability issues. Unicorbia (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your source is about Musk's Boxabl house, not the "Tesla house" demonstrator in the article under discussion. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Anonrfjwhuikdzz's observation that this was more a way to showcase Tesla products than an actual prototype tiny house for production. (This article [11] says "Inside the house is where Tesla wants to seal the deal. There's a mobile design studio and a configurator that buyers can use to create a custom solar solution for their own home.") As such, it would probably be best to merge it to Tesla Energy. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:43, 7 April 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.

Architecture Proposed deletions

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture

Architecture

Carson Community Center

Stanley Shaftel

Lagos Marriott Hotel

Joanna Bacon

Imperial College Halls of Residence

Big Coins

Willoughby Condominium

Aranmula Palace

Mount Sinai South Nassau

Tesla house

Architecture Proposed deletions

Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

Other pages