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. ✗plicit 14:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kushtia Central Jame Masjid

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

More reliable sources needed, i searched myself and found one but it was just a passing mention, needs more sources to establish WP:GNG. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: It is mentioned in a book that is already cited in this article. How is this not notable?? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: texts not fully supported by the ref(s) Somajyoti ✉ 19:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid deletion reason. MarioGom (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep: The mosque was established in 1896. This is an old and traditional mosque. I cited a book in the reference.

ইমন (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep: It's an old & traditional mosque.

রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be enough RSes to justify inclusion. This is certainly more notable than an average mosque and the page seems developed enough and supported enough to justify inclusion in my opinion. More sources would be optimal but overall notable. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is consensus, I believe, that historical houses of worship older than 100 years are likely to be notable. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 6 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 draftify‎. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parbad Kali Mandir

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per AFC reviewers, if the editor thinks they can improve it then draftspace is the right place for it. I agree that it's not yet ready for mainspace but that better sources, if they can be found, would do the trick. Meadowlark (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Not yet ready for mainspace. Though I will say an IP made the page. Who's draft space would this go to? Ramos1990 (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramos1990, draftspace doesn't belong to anyone - it'll just be Draft:Pardbad Kali Mandir, and anyone can work on it. IPs create and submit drafts all the time! Meadowlark (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. Thank you very much for explaining that! Ramos1990 (talk) 04:25, 19 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 11:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Sikora

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:24, 11 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 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.

Architecture Proposed deletions

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture

Architecture

Kushtia Central Jame Masjid

Parbad Kali Mandir

Bernd Sikora

Foresters House

Architecture Proposed deletions

Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

Other pages