Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 14:56, 22 April 2025 (Archiving closed XfDs (errors?): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carson Community Center). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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


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


Architecture

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 03:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Occupancy

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

Not a dictionary. Qwirkle (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but no prejudice to draftify. When I initially saw the page, I thought that it could be kept. Turned out it is primarily about the word "occupancy" rather than about the concept of occupancy, especially with the section "other meanings". But I think it has the potential to be a better article, it just needs time.
Dr. Hyde, muahahaha jekyllthefabulous (speak, or you shall die) 05:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was working on a draft about the concept of vacant buildings (they have a lot of unique challenges like abandonment, squatting, reuse, pest control) that I was probably going to include in this article instead. Usually we don't delete articles just because they're bad but have the potential to be better (there's WP:TNT but I don't think it's at that level of unsaveable). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:14, 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 keep‎. No deletion rationale provided here or support for a deletion of this article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Margarida Fleming

AfDs for this article:
Margarida Fleming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neutral. As the original author of the article I do not accept suggestions that the article is inaccurate. To the best of my knowledge the complainant has not provided any examples of inaccuracies. Further, there are a large number of citations given. The fact that these sources are freely available rather challenges the complainant's request for privacy. I probably prepared the article after seeing a list of the "Top Ten Most Inspiring Portuguese Women",[1] which to me does not suggest a lack of notability, although I would agree that the subject, despite the quality of her work, is not in the first rank of Portuguese artists and her inclusion on Wikipedia cannot be considered essential. Roundtheworld (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Top 10 Most Inspiring Portuguese Women". Discover Walks. Retrieved 21 April 2025.
  • Question: Of the fourteen sources currently in the article, which one(s) are not blogs, user-submitted content, sales sites or primary sources? In other words, which are secondary reliable sources that are fully independent from the person? Netherzone (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question 2: OK, I'm confused. The nominator, Roundtheworld, who started this AfD says they are the original author, but are neutral about deletion. However the article history says that the editor, Umdiadepois, nominated the article for deletion according to their user contributions,[1] and they claim to be the the subject of the article, although there is no proof of that. Roundtheworld could you, when you find a moment, please explain what's going on, I'm confused. Thank you, Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not start the AFD. I responded to a notification that the page had been started. Umdiadepois had previously made lots of large deletions, which were reverted by others. I am reasonably satisfied that she is the subject of the article. Her first revert stated "Hello, I am the subject of this article. Some of the information is outdated and does not accurately reflect my current trajectory. I would like the article to be simplified, as I prefer to keep my personal and professional information on my official website. I kindly request the removal of excessive details and a more neutral, concise version of the article. Thank you for your time and consideration." Roundtheworld (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining, now I understand. Umdiadepois may well be the subject, however, because this is a BLP, I think there is a procedure that has to occur to prove that they are who they say they are. If I'm not mistaken, they need to file an email ticket with WP:VRT that gets reviewed by a team member and assigned a number. I'm pinging @Star Mississippi for her guidance. (BTW, I have no opinion on Fleming's notability at this time.) Netherzone (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Netherzone for the ping. NZ, @Roundtheworld while that's the best route if Fleming wants to edit the article or under their name, it's not mandatory for us to consider this deletion discussion. They're welcome to open the discussion or weigh in and if they have specific privacy concerns about material, they should reach out to VRT/OTRS. No comment on notability as I haven't had a chance to dive in and it's late here @Justlettersandnumbers @Barkeep49 is there anything we're missing here? Star Mississippi 03:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think participants in this discussion, including any closer(s), are welcome to consider how to weight the request from an unverified account for purposes of Wikipedia:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fleming appears to be notable enough based on coverage in Portuguese arts media. No nomination rationale is given here in this discussion page, but when Umdiadepois edited the page to place the AFD nomination, the edit summary was Nominating article for deletion – subject requests removal due to privacy, inaccuracy, and lack of notability. Umdiadepois has, in a prior edit summary, claimed to be Margarida Fleming. However, I don't believe Wikipedia is in the practice of removing articles simply based on the subject's request. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the article that is derogatory or negative in any way, and even if there were, we could edit the article to correct that without deletion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:03, 27 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. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sky City 1000

AfDs for this article:
Sky City 1000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

infrastructure article proposed in 1989 and without a completion and creation date. I echo what was said in the first nomination: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; and articles are created when they are under construction. Iban14mxl (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notability does not expire. Featured on Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering (2003). 10 years earlier, an article in NewScientist (1993). Proposed ideas can be notable. There are proposed ideas to live on Mars such as Caves of Mars Project (2004), Mars Direct (1996). None of these ideas have happened, and probably never will, but we still have articles for them because they were notable ideas. -- GreenC 02:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an architect, but at first glance it is clear that the design is outdated and does not meet the construction requirements, or it could be that this project was replaced by another work. Unlike the hotel and skyscraper started in 1989 in Pyongyang, this work was not even started. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Iban14mxl (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see Caves of Mars Project (2004), Mars Direct (1996)? Both of these projects never happened, never will happen, and are not feasible. Yet, they are both notable. Notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources. -- GreenC 04:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's curious that the media doesn't talk about this project, but Wikipedia does. You're using a series that came out more than 23 years ago and hasn't been updated with reliable and verifiable sources. Iban14mxl (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you are unfamiliar with the concept notability doesn't expire. A notable topic 23 years ago, is still notable today. It doesn't require a constant stream of sources forever to remain suitable to remain on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 15:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE Wikipedia is not a repository of unverified information. Iban14mxl (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate is usually applied to things like "List of murders", since there are so many of them, we don't try to list them all, such a list would be indiscriminate. But this project is not indiscriminate because 1) there are very few projects like it in scope, almost by definition this project is highly discriminated from other building projects and 2) it has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources making it notable. -- GreenC 15:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador The most I found was this article it is stated that the project would have been the tallest building in the world and one of the most innovative, officially remaining as a discontinued project. I must assume that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and if it is officially stated that this project was cancelled, why do they persist in maintaining this article? Iban14mxl (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not made a case why the existing sources are insufficient. You have also already been informed why the project being unfinished doesn't matter, so I won't bother explaining it a third time. Cortador (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE Wikipedia is not a repository of unverified information. Iban14mxl (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you are having trouble searching for sources. I started with Google, and found this page. At the bottom, in a section called "References", are three sources. Including the one you found at Mens Health, that is now 4 sources. This topic is discussed in 86 books and magazines at archive.org. Some examples:
Would you like more sources? -- GreenC 15:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've added Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (2012), which cites Sky City 1000 as a “visionary project for vertical cities.” Alongside Structural Engineering International (1992), New Scientist (1993), and Discovery Channel’s Extreme Engineering (2003), the project has received broad, independent coverage in reliable sources over two decades. Notability does not require the project to have been built. This clearly meets WP:GNG. HerBauhaus (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As others have noted, notability does not expire. DCsansei (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think some of the issues that people might have had with this article would be alleviated if we change the article into past (potential) tense. Are there any people still proposing this building be built? Or is it just an artifact of Bubble Japan that received a notable amount of attention? Moritoriko (talk) 02:45, 24 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. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aeropolis 2001

Aeropolis 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A building project was conceived in 1989, but there has been no news of it since 1995. Too much time has passed, and I doubt they'll build it in the coming decades. Iban14mxl (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

commnet Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cristal no facts, events, or future works are predicted here. And I also have to add that this article does not maintain reliable or verifiable sources, nor are they updated, no one is talking about this project today. Iban14mxl (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability doesn't expire. Nobody reporting on this project isn't relevant.
If you think this article should be deleted due to a lack of sources, do a BEFORE instead of making blanket claims about sourcing. Cortador (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There must be some record that this is a reality, otherwise we would be falling into speculation, this is simply not relevant. Iban14mxl (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've added a U.S. Department of Energy-indexed source (OSTI ID: 5532033) that discusses Aeropolis 2001 alongside other major Japanese skyscraper proposals from the era. It, along with The Ottawa Citizen and Herald Sun, provides independent coverage of the project’s scale and ambition. Notability under WP:GNG is based on significant coverage, not completion. HerBauhaus (talk) 10:33, 24 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. 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

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

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]

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]
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

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

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]

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]
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

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

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]

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. [3], 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 [4]. Coverage here [5], 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. 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

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

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]

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.

Architecture Proposed deletions


Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

Other pages

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Architecture&oldid=1286873383"