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 keep‎. Robust consensus that as an NRHP contributing property it is a notable subject. Any necessary cleanup and improvements can be handled editorially. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carter-Newton House

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

Article seems to function as an extended family history related to the Carter-Newton House, rather than an encyclopedic entry about a notable subject. It suffers from a near-complete lack of reliable, independent sources, making the vast majority of its content unverifiable (WP:V) and potentially original research (WP:OR) by a user whose name implies a relation to the owners. Article fails to establish the notability (WP:N) of the house, appearing more like a genealogical record (WP:NOTGENEALOGY). — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 13:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree it’s written like a poor novella, and is very weakly-sourced. But an 1840s house in the US is likely notable, and there is an indication it’s on the National Register. KJP1 (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 13:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It could use more sourcing, but that in and of itself is not a hindrance. Please see Category:Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in Georgia (U.S. state) Properties on the NRHP are notable, all of them. The screening review process of such properties is repeated on several levels, beginning with the local reviews, city and perhaps even state level. The final review is the federal National Register of Historic Places, scrutinized in detail. And, yes, the initial NRHP review does often include historic details of the property and owners of the property. Some Wikipedians are better at putting the details together than others.The editor who wrote this article is no longer active on Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but it's worth noting that I can't find any information online that this building is on the NRHP - the link on the page leads to a different building (Bonar Hall), which is individually registered. Carter-Newton might be part of the Historic District, but that includes many buildings, and presumably we're not arguing that every single house in such an area needs its own page, especially if there are basically no sources on it? Of course, I might just not be researching in the right place. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 12:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that also. I've been looking for a correct source link, but these old NRHP references are hard to find. So far, I haven't had much except a mention in Pg 27 Section 8 1st paragraph. — Maile (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the state, and NRHP sites in Georgia were scanned a few years ago. The link is in the NRHP info box, here. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that - this house is in a NRHP historic district - the link is not to this house. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. To me, just being in a Historic District doesn't mean an individual building is automatically notable. >95% of the 'information' on the page just sounds like family hearsay, and once we cut all of that, there's basically nothing left. Thus my nomination. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 20:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Properties on the NRHP are notable (including contributing properties).Djflem (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the other comments, it could use more sources though. I went through and trimmed a ton of unneeded family history to try and focus on the house and the people that lived in it. Moritoriko (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is on the National Register of Historic Places, so it is notable. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On quick search there appears reasonable coverage meeting criteria for notability. Agreeing above conversation. WikiMentor01 (talk) 14:34, 29 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. With thanks to the editors who managed to sort out the mess. asilvering (talk) 02:21, 5 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]

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:47, 12 May 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]
  There's a document on intent to designate [1], but I'm not sure if it was actually designated or not. MarioGom (talk) 14:10, 10 May 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. [2], 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 [3]. Coverage here [4], 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]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 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 [5], book mentions [6]. 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 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.

Architecture Proposed deletions

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture

Architecture

Carter-Newton House

Stefanos Sinos

Foresters House

Carson Community Center

Stanley Shaftel

Joanna Bacon

Architecture Proposed deletions

Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

Other pages