Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect‎ to List of Buddhist temples in Japan#Kyoto. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shinnyō-ji

Shinnyō-ji (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)

Contested redirect without improvement. Currently 2 unreliable and 1 primary source. Searches revealed lots of mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:03, 7 June 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. This AfD has been just a waste of editors' time, as it was started by the creator of the article, so it could just have been speedily deleted under criterion G7. However, it's a SNOW delete anyway, so either way there's no point in leaving it any longer. JBW (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Peter and Paul Church (Chernivtsi)

Saints Peter and Paul Church (Chernivtsi) (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)

the references of the article are mostly generated using ChatGPT. Vinizex94🌍 01:25, 7 June 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Park Plaza Westminster Bridge

Park Plaza Westminster Bridge (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)

No significant coverage. Aŭstriano (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Engineered constructs says:

    Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. "Park Plaza Westminster Bridge: A claustrophobic monolith with good gadgets and bad views". The Times. 2010-05-01. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.

      The review notes: "Sitting in the Primo bar of this vast new 1,021-room hotel — the biggest in London — we looked out of the window and tried to take in Big Ben at sunset. There should have been a clear view to the Houses of Parliament from the building, which resembles an enormous tenpin bowling ball with the top sliced off, and is on the roundabout site of the long-derelict former offices of the Inner London Education Authority. But despite the location just south of Westminster Bridge — we wanted to be close to the action in the run-up to the election — it was difficult to catch a glimpse of Westminster Palace, the target of Brown, Clegg and Cameron’s ambitions."

    2. Coren, Giles (2010-07-03). "Giles Coren reviews Brasserie Joël, London SE1". The Times. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.

      The review notes: "It’s hard to know where to start with the chop-slapping accuracy of the phrase “horrible place”. You know the roundabout on the south side of Westminster Bridge which has been a huge stinking mess of building site behind vast forbidding hoardings for about 200 years? Well, now it’s even uglier. Because what is there now is a big round black thing called the Westminster Bridge Park Plaza – although I believe they brand it “Park Plaza Westminster Bridge” to make absolutely certain you are aware it is a grand international chain, and the famous river crossing is merely tagged on as an address to help Japanese overnighters give easy directions to their taxi. This hulking carbuncstrosity – which claims (by all the gods) to be a “design-led hotel”, as if that were a positive thing in some way – is self-besplattered with enormous bill posters (which is not very “design-led” if you ask me) advertising “500 Studio Rooms ideal for families”, “Five distinctive dining and entertainment experiences”, “1,200 square-metre, pillar-free ballroom”, “31 additional meeting rooms, two executive lounges and free Wi-Fi throughout” and “Spa with eight treatment rooms and a Fitness Centre complete with 15-metre swimming pool”. Ooh, “pillar-free”. How thrilling."

    3. Jeffs, Lotte (October 2010). "Hotel of the Month: Park Plaza Westminster". Diva. p. 70. ProQuest 2370993087.

      The review notes: "Westminster's Park Plaza offers all the inconspicuousness of a big city chain hotel, but with those stylish flourishes and designer details that make doing the dirty feel a little less sordid. Make sure you book a room above the fifth floor to enjoy a panoramic view of the Houses of Parliament (that other den of iniquity), the Thames and a load of little people with far less glamorous and exciting lives than yours - obviously - scurrying home to their partners over Westminster Bridge. The rooms themselves offer everything you need for a night of illicit infidelity - namely a big comfy bed, a power shower and a Do Not Disturb sign. The hotel's restaurant serves really good, elegant, first-date food (no burritos that will leave a trail of salsa down your chin and have your mistress wondering if she really is doing the wrong thing!), the lighting is flattering and the service attentive but not too much so. There's also a good-sized pool and spa at the hotel so you can feel thoroughly cleansed the morning after the night before."

    4. Phillips, Jessica (2024-05-02). "The 24 best romantic hotels in London". Time Out. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.

      The review notes: "Run by mammoth hotel chain Radisson, who also run the Park Inn and art 'otel brands, Park Plaza Westminster is a slick operation that also caters to the masses. With 1,023 rooms and suites, it's closer to a cruise ship than to its neighbour and rival, Premier Inn. Rooms are stripped back, with white walls and a dark wooden table making up the skeleton of the space. The minimalism is deliberate; the majority of rooms have a screensaver view of the Houses of Parliament, Big Ben and The London Eye. So close are you to the Elizabeth Tower, you might as well be reading the ten o' clock news. The hotel has a gym, pool, steam room, sauna and spa. Brasserie Joel is also a dining experience worth slowing down for. The French restaurant serves up classics like beef bourguignon, guinea fowl and French onion soup alongside an extensive wine menu."

    5. Syz, Francesca (2010-07-31). "Four of the best hotels by the Thames, by Francesca Syz". The Daily Telegraph. ProQuest 734431511.

      The review notes: "After years of having to look at a monstrous office block at the centre of the roundabout just south of Westminster Bridge, we now have something new and infinitely nicer to consider - the futuristic, cylindershaped Park Plaza Westminster Bridge Hotel. Located a minute's walk from the London Eye and two minutes from the Houses of Parliament, this 1,021-room hotel is an ideal base for a sightseeing weekend in London. While not directly on the river, the hotel has uninterrupted views of Westminster Bridge. More than half the rooms have their own kitchenettes, and 27 have outdoor terraces (these rooms will open shortly). There's also a brasserie-style restaurant, a sushi bar, coffee shop and an eight-treatment-room spa with a swimming-pool and gym. While rooms with river views cannot be guaranteed, you can request one; and here's a tip - any room with the number 69 in it will have a river view (269, 369 etc). From floors two to seven, you can see Westminster Bridge, Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament; from floors eight to 12, you will see the river, too."

    6. Carmichael, Sri (2009-07-22). "Super-green hotel will bottle its own brand of mineral water". Evening Standard. Factiva NS00000020090724e57m0000c. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.

      The article notes: "The largest hotel ever built in London will bottle all its own water to offer guests instead of expensive mineral brands.The final beam of the £350 million Park Plaza Westminster Bridge hotel was bolted into place by Mayor Boris Johnson last night at the 'topping out' ceremony.The 1,021-room riverside hotel on the South Bank, which offers uninterrupted views of the Houses of Parliament from the former site of the Greater London Council building, will be one of the greenest in the capital once it opens early next year.The onsite water plant is expected to produce more than a million bottles of triple-filtered tap water ‹ sparkling and still ‹ each year, using 10,000 reusable sterilised bottles for the hotel's restaurants, mini-bars and spa."

    7. Chesters, Laura (2010-04-16). "Check-out time at Park Plaza: Investors struggle to find mortgages for $300m hotel rooms". Property Week. Factiva CSYR000020100416e64g00002.

      The article notes: "More than 840 investors have been refused mortgages on £300m of luxury hotel rooms they were to buy at a recently completed development in central London.In 2007, investors put down deposits for rooms at the Park Plaza Westminster Bridge London, a 1,021-room apart-hotel and conference venue that opened last month.On 6 April the developer, Park Plaza, served notice to the investors to complete their purchases.Park Plaza had sold the hotel rooms off plan to private investors.The buyers agreed to pay £300,000 on average for a hotel room with the promise of a 6% annual return on their money over five years.But the downturn and the lack of bank finance means no investor has been able to secure a mortgage against the assets on a non-recourse basis."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Park Plaza Westminster Bridge to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep per the excellent WP:HEY work done. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable cemetery

Sustainable cemetery (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)

This has a number of scholarly sources but still feels like a WP:NOTESSAY failure. Based on the formatting, I also suspect a LLM was used to generate at least some of the content. MidnightMayhem 12:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sure, it could do with editing for tone/style, but it's by far not the most egregious example I've seen. It reads a bit like something written for a college class, but not like an essay in the sense of a think piece or opinion piece -- it's close enough to Wikipedia article structure to be salvageable via copy editing. Thus, IMO it's not so bad as to require burning down and starting over. It's an encyclopedic topic with significant coverage and pretty good sourcing, and like all our articles, will be improved over time. -- Avocado (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Viewing the history this was indeed written as part of a WikiEd course (and could use a copyedit), but this is absolutely a notable topic. Could possibly be expanded/improved with sources from natural burial as well, but I'd have go through the sources there. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 09:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG, and cleanup is not a valid reason for deletion. I've tidied up a bit, and may do some more later. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, topic is clearly notable and deletion is not cleanup. ~ A412 talk! 15:37, 6 June 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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Roofing Contractors Association

National Roofing Contractors Association (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)

Declined prod that was redirected to Reid Ribble. Ribble was only president for 2 years and his article contains no information on what this association is/did. Article created by a single purpose account.

A search in google news only comes up with roofing related sources which are not independent for meeting WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Let's hope we get some more participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nom in toto, and assuming good faith, if the only resources editor's including User:LeapTorchGear could find are primary in nature, then it is unlikely that there is any true value to keeping the page up. I would also raise that even if it suddenly was mentioned extensively in secondary sources, it still wouldn't be of much value to a Wikipedia reader. Foxtrot620 (talk) 01:50, 27 June 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. Per the recent discussion and changes to the article post relisting (including a withdrawal by the original nominator, not dispositive but noteworthy) i'm seeing a general consensus that notability is met. James of UR (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nativity of the Virgin Mary Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral, Sterling Heights, Michigan

Nativity of the Virgin Mary Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral, Sterling Heights, Michigan (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)

This building doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. I added the only sources I could find to the article, and the only secondary source with significant coverage is Mactel Australian Macedonian News, which looks tenuously reliable to me. There may be significant coverage in Macedonian language sources. No obvious redirect targets. Suriname0 (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content itself is mostly generic info about the church and a piece of trivia about it. No indication as to why it is relevant in itself, probably best to include information about it in the Macedonian Orthodox Church linked in the article itself. 37.211.69.56 (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would anyone like to reconsider their !votes in light of Dclemens's findings?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator's most recent comment increases the probability that the site is a cathedral (bishop's seat). Let's give this one more go-around, in hope that additional sourcing appears. There is broad agreement that the article can be kept if at least the basic facts can be reliably established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All it says is The bishop's seat is in Sterling Heights -- it doesn't say anything about this church or whether it is a cathedral. For all it says, it may mean that the bishop just lives in Sterling Heights. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The traditional definition of a cathedral just is the seat of the bishop. Regardless, I think demonstration of significant coverage is needed to close this as keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just so everyone's clear and it's not lost, @Arbitrarily0 is correct. A cathedral, by definition, is just the church that's the seat of the bishop for that area. I can't do a deep dive into the sources now, but if the source says it's the seat then that would essentially confirm its a cathedral as far as that issue is concerned. Just10A (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Best. --Local hero talk 20:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Having recently made the List of churches in the Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of America and Canada, I can say that there is a section about this church in the book Macedonians in the World by Slavé Katin (pp. 173-175). It goes into some of the history of the church and its architecture. Many of the other churches in the diocese of America and Canada have short sections as well. The English translation that I have is a bit sketchy, and elements of the book seem a bit polemic, but it does seem like it's gone through some sort of academic peer review process and I don't see why the sections about the churches wouldn't be at least reasonably reliable. If anyone wants me to send the pages, you can ping me at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Spookyaki (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn (Keep) - The 5 substantive paragraphs in Katin (one can find a PDF via Google with some ease), in conjunction with the Macedonian language coverage identified by User:Local hero, lead me to believe the subject meets WP:GNG. So, I'm withdrawing my nomination and suggesting the article should be kept. Suriname0 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in agreement with the nominator who has withdrawn in view of the additional sources identified by Local hero and the book sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:41, 29 June 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 Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of America and Canada as a temporary placeholder, as suggested here, until a list article is created. Once the list page is in place, any editor may merge the content from here into the list. Owen× ☎ 22:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ilija Macedonian Orthodox Church, Mississauga

St. Ilija Macedonian Orthodox Church, Mississauga (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)

Already had a notability template on it. Can't really find any information about it online except the church's "About" page, which has been directly copy-pasted into the article. Currently have a copyvio template up, but it might be best for the article to just go. Spookyaki (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like we maybe want to make a list of the churches. Does anyone want to make the list then? I don’t have any prior experience with lists like that, but could give it a shot once I’m back from vacation, particularly if someone gave me a similar list to use for reference. I suppose the list would be “List of Macedonian Orthodox Church buildings” or something similar? Spookyaki (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "American-Canadian Macedonian Orthodox Diocese". stspeterandpaulmoc.org. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
  2. ^ "Macedonian Orthodox Church: American-Canadian Diocese (1967 - Present) - Religious Group". Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA). Retrieved 2025-06-16.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the suggestion of a fairly complex ATD, I think some further discussion is worthwhile here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 08:46, 20 June 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Junction Colorado Temple

Grand Junction Colorado Temple (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)

1. Subject does not meet WP:GNG as per WP:ORG and WP:NCHURCH. A dash of WP:TOOSOON as it would appear the church is not even open yet.

2. WP:PROMOTIONAL tone.

3. Overt reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources. It would appear that only two secondary sources are here.

Regardless, while points two and three might be addressed, point one will not be.

MWFwiki (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support deletion, although these concerns could be fixed with a re-write so maybe move it to a draft. Sushidude21! (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, possibly until September It looks like this temple will open later this year. That said, you may have a case that the articles on these buildings are overly reliant on LDS Church sources. Looking at this one, we have three articles from two sources (KJCT and KKCO share a newsroom — if I had a nickel for every time Gray Television came up at an AfD I'd reviewed in the last week, I'd have two nickels, but whatever). Every remaining reference is direct from the LDS Church or an affiliate like Church News or LDS Living. There is a substantial amount of puffy wording that could be cut down. I note an earlier redirect attempt was reverted by the creator of the current text. I want to see Happyrain2121 contribute as they have been very active in temple articles. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Draftify': There is likely to be sufficient independent WP:SIGCOV generated after the temple's completion to result in a WP:GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot assume whether or not there will be SIGCOV. Draftspace doesn't exist to park a topic until SIGCOV materializes. If it were opening in a week, sure, I'd support this... but outright claiming that will "likely be sufficient independent SIGCOV" is TOOSOON with a dash of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Regardless, SIGCOV arguably already technically exists, but we don't have it in the form of independent RSs. I'm not arguing to salt the subject, but I also didn't submit this article. MWFwiki (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what draftspace is for. Every other LDS temple has an article. I'm not saying this one should have an article in the absence of SIGCOV. I'm just saying that it's almost certain to have it by the time it's completed. No point in deleting and then having to undelete it later when we can just draftify it until the right coverage emerges. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftspace exists to "improve" an article. It is not "exactly" for parking an article to wait for SIGCOV to materialize. We also cannot assume SIGCOV will exist or not. It doesn't, presently. WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is not a replacement for SIGCOV. MWFwiki (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Improvement" includes looking for and waiting for sources. If in six months there are no sources and the draft is not improved, it will be deleted. If returned to mainspace without improvements, then it can be deleted. I participate a lot at AfD and I've !voted plenty of times for deletion, but it always makes more sense (and is more welcoming to page creators and thus supportive of new editor retention) to give articles on topics likely to be notable in the near future a chance to hang out in draftspace. Regardless, I looked at the history of this page, and it was a redirect before the article was created. Restoring a redirect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Colorado#Temples will have the same effect as draftification (the expanded article created by @Happyrain2121 remains in the article history, ready to be revived once sufficient sourcing is available) while allowing us to avoid a rather talmudic debate about the purposes of draftspace. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate everyone for taking the time to give feedback on this article.
With all that was mentioned, it seems like the main concern is whether the article meets the general notability guidelines. To align with that, I’ve added several independent sources that demonstrate the consistent coverage of the Grand Junction Temple—not just quick mentions or announcements, and removed the source that is marked as generally not reliable in Wikipedia. I’ve also made some updates to the article itself based on the comments given earlier, including neutralizing the tone, adjusting the language that might have come across as promotional, and improving the source formatting.
Before we wrap up the discussion, I am hoping that you could take another look at the current version of the article. I put in a good amount of effort to find additional independent sources to directly address the concerns mentioned. For example, I added two sources from Western Slope Now, a local news outlet—one from late 2022 and another from April 2025. The fact that they are published in different years and not church-affiliated, shows that this isn’t just a one-time mention.
Regarding church-published sources like Church News, I’ve used them to support basic and factual information. I find that it’s generally consistent with the guidance given in WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Sources, and it aligns with how similar articles use them. If there’s anything that still stands out to be insufficient, I’m more than happy to rework it. Happyrain2121 (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the newly added references?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Newly added independent sources show a WP:GNG pass, even before completion. As noted above, LDS temples are almost always notable so it's no surprise that sufficient coverage was found, even pre-completion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems the central point of the argument for deletion revolved around independent sourcing, and the two articles, focused on the temple, both span across multiple years, which meets WP:SIGCOV. This shows enough notability even before the temple will open. HappyRain2121 met the major points addressed, including the tone of the article being too promotional. An article with a "C" grade only needs to cite more than one reliable source (and the article has at least two from that independent source). It seems to already meet the standard of significant coverage, so the page should stay. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify until completion, not just an estimated future date. WP:PROMOTION - This never should have been in main space. As is, this reads like a press release, and should not be in main space. — Maile (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve again made additional edits trying to further address concerns related to WP:PROMOTIONAL tone. Regarding WP:TOOSOON, while the Grand Junction Colorado Temple has not yet been dedicated, it has already received significant, independent, and reliable media coverage—satisfying the threshold established by WP:GNG. For instance, The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel published a detailed article in June 2024 discussing construction progress and community impact. Multiple other news outlets have reported on public interest, architectural design, and the temple’s anticipated role in the region.
    This demonstrates that the temple is already notable, even prior to its dedication, due to its documented regional significance. I believe that addresses the concern of WP:TOOSOON. The coverage cited is from independent, reliable sources and includes in-depth reporting, which meets Wikipedia’s general notability standard.
    To further illustrate, as with many others, the One Bloor West article covers a building that is still under construction, yet it has its own well-sourced Wikipedia page. This suggests that the inclusion standard is not whether a structure is complete, but whether it has received sustained and significant attention in reliable sources—which the Grand Junction Temple demonstrably has.
    If there are lingering concerns that parts of the article still read as promotional, I’m more than willing to make additional revisions. I’ve already rewritten much of the content to address tone and ensure everything is grounded in what has been independently reported. Where Church sources are used, they are properly attributed and are generally accepted according to the Latter-day Saint perennial sources list.
    At this stage, the conversation seems to be repeating previous points. If no new policy-based objections are being raised, it may be reasonable to consider whether the discussion has run its course.
    Lastly, just so I fully understand: is there a specific Wikipedia policy being violated here? I’ve reviewed WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, and the Manual of Style, and I haven’t found anything that prohibits coverage of a building—religious or otherwise—before it officially opens. Happyrain2121 (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dclemens1971. This is a substantial structure going up in Colorado that has received non-LDS coverage. The article still needs to be purged of some PROMO content, but we have hit the threshold of clearing GNG. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:41, 21 June 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. Star Mississippi 02:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat Castle

Democrat Castle (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)

None of the sources listed mention the castle. Does not meet notability. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 19:17, 7 June 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. Star Mississippi 16:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westgate Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge

Westgate Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge (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)

I cannot find any independent significant coverage of the bridge. All the sources are either press releases or just some very basic news coverage of the bridge opening. The only SIGCOV I found was written by two men who worked on the bridge and thus not independent. Some information could be merged to Northwestern Motorway Traumnovelle (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People build bridges, for the most part, because they are needed; it doesn't make any given bridge notable. And I don't see a paper by the builder's designers as conferring notability either. If it were widely cited in the literature that would be a different story, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts on that technical paper?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The technical paper is incredibly well-detailed but per WP:INDEPENDENT 'To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia.' The authors of the paper were the engineers for the bridge. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Northwestern Motorway. Insufficient notability for a stand-alone article, but a noteworthy feature along the road it crosses. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:31, 19 June 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. Star Mississippi 03:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kushtia Municipal Building

Kushtia Municipal Building (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)

Despite a lovely photo gallery, I see no evidence this building passes WP:GNG. The article's only source is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, a municipal government web page. A BEFORE search only turns up primary sources and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. This article was previously BLAR'ed by Onel5969, which was reverted by page creator ইমন. Since I do not see standalone notability here, I seek an AfD consensus for a redirect to Kushtia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give the pinged use some time to respond.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 22:27, 3 June 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. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest structures by category

Tallest structures by category (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)

The encyclopedia already has many, many articles listing tall buildings. The encyclopedia also has many categories related to tall buildings.

This new article has several issues: (a) does not conform to proper title convention (should be "List of ..."); (b) 90% of the facts (rows) do not have any citation validating the facts of the row; and most importantly: (c) this list is duplicative of all the other "tall building" lists already in the encyclopedia... every time a new record is broken, this is one more list to update.

If the consensus is to keep this list, at a minimum it must be properly sourced. There is no lack of sources in the other, existing List articles. Noleander (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the above AfD as part of WP:NPP effort. After making the post, I see another editor, User:Remsense had similar thoughts two weeks ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tallest_structures_by_category&diff=1289324742&oldid=1289202581 Remsense deleted the article and replaced it with a redirect to List of tallest buildings and structures. Then, the article creator returned and re-created the article.
Probably should do that same "Delete and redirect" action again. Noleander (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Although if you'd like to change the article name to List of tallest structures by category, I have no objection to that.
The article says, for example, that the tallest clock tower is the Abraj Al Bait, at 601 meters. It links to an article with a list of the tallest clock towers, and another article all about the Abraj Al Bait. Those other articles have sources. Although if you'd like to add sources here too, I'd be in favor of that.
It's true that this article is a bit duplicative of all the other lists. But I think it's useful having a single article like this to combine them all, and see how each category compares to the other. One more list to update isn't that big a deal.
For those who are just joining us, this article used to be a single section of a larger article titled List of tallest buildings and structures. Here is how it looked when they were together. But it didn't really have anything in common with the rest of that article (which was the history of the world's tallest structures), so this section was recently made into a separate article of its own, and the remainder had its name changed. Remsense thought they should stay together, rather than being separate articles, which we discussed. But I don't think anyone has previously suggested it should be deleted altogether. This information has been on Wikipedia at its prior location for a long time. It does lack references, but it's a good article, it's been pretty high profile, and a lot of people have contributed to it. - Burner89751654 (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This isn't a new article, it's a very longstanding article that's been split out to a new name. I don't believe it's duplicative, the creator has been working on improving organziation of tallest building lists recently. More sources are certainly needed but there's no basis for deletion given. Reywas92Talk 04:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant fork of other existing articles with minimal citations. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the consensus is pretty clear. But I'll note that this information isn't just in the English Wikipedia. It's also in Wikipedias for at least 11 other languages. They used to be tied to the old article, but I went through this week and linked them up to the new version. If some people are concerned that this article doesn't include the sources that are already referenced in the linked articles, then I'd suggest you move over the references yourselves, rather than wasting people's time with this discussion. - Burner89751654 (talk) 11:58, 1 June 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=1294522623"