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 Dclemens1971 (talk | contribs) at 03:24, 16 June 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Patrick Church (Wyandotte).). 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 redirect‎ to List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit#South Region. Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Patrick Church (Wyandotte)

St. Patrick Church (Wyandotte) (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)

Apparently non-notable parish church in metro Detroit. The only source provided is an official parish history, which is obviously non-independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing usable except a local news piece on its 155th anniversary, which is not enough on its own for a WP:GNG pass as a standalone page. Open to a redirect to List_of_churches_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Detroit#South_Region, where it is mentioned, but bringing it to AfD since it has already been draftified and returned to mainspace without improvements, so I didn't think a WP:BLAR was appropriate in that situation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list article recommended by Dclemens1971. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow for further discussion and participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:00, 30 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. Malinaccier (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Arnhem city fire

2025 Arnhem city fire (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)

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. No WP:SUSTAINED coverage. XYZ1233212 (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per SIGCOV, LASTING, and PERSISTENCE. There is nothing routine about huge fires in city centers of the Netherlands that wipe out a huge block of buildings. 25 buildings destroyed, including a national and several city monumental buildings are major IMPACTs. This article, part of sustained coverage, literally states that the impacts are lasting. Coverage is SUSTAINED and ongoing from March, with the most recent articles published just hours ago.[4][5] Unclear why this was nominated. There is a stated rationale yet it isn't correct. gidonb (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All coverage is breaking news about the fire itself or updates since then. A dearth of retrospective analysis. "It feels important" does not confer notability. There's also a WP:NOPAGE argument, as there's no valid justification for this to not be covered at Arnhem if better sourcing is found (is it not mentioned there because it's not important, or because it is important but we instead opted for bragging rights of a "new" article?). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 14:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It feels important" does not confer notability. Sure, but that is stating the obvious. The case for keeping is based on SIGCOV, LASTING, and PERSISTENCE. Merging would create UNDUE. There is no WP:NOPAGE argument, just a wave. gidonb (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would these articles be "breaking" if the coverage continuous three months after the fire? Are you aware that the Netherlands has highly developed mass media and institutions of higher learning, and that people publish articles and books all the time in the Netherlands? Your reactions create the impression that you throw random stuff against the wall. gidonb (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This is all local coverage of the sort one would expect of a substantial fire in any city. Maybe it should be merged into the city article itself, but A bunch of buildings burned, some were historic, it was sad, life went on, the buildings will be replaced or rebuilt, people may be prosecuted, but all in all it's the sort of thing that happens from time to time in any city. It isn't as though the central business district was leveled, and even then, one could make a very good argument for briefly and proportionately covering such a huge catastrophe in the city's history. This is nothing of such scale. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Mangoe (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a ridiculous argument. NOTNEWS replies only to the routine. This was a major incident which was picked up by international media in the AP, UAE, Canada, and Malaysia [8] [9] [10] [11] and continues to receive ongoing coverage. The follow-up received international coverage in at least China: [12]
    Compare to this routine fire of a house in the same city from 2023 which only appeared in local news and had no follow-up coverage, which is exactly what we apply WP:NOTNEWS to. SportingFlyer T·C 07:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with SportingFlyer. 1) It’s not local news coverage, and if so it’s not a valid reason. 2) It’s not only about the sources in the article but about all sources that exist. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This disaster has a major impact in The Netherlands, with still ongoing coverage in the main national news outlets. Disaster meeting each aspect of WP:NEVENT with a main lasting effect. If I take for instance a look in reliable sources of only last week: About the cause, About suspects, About the location and its future, About the medieval walls, About the trial, Description of suspects. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A major event in the Nl which has continued to receive coverage, as per above. Djflem (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:13, 26 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]
  • Keep. I added several references. LeapTorchGear (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of added sources are from primary sources such as "Roofing Contractor". LibStar (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Roofing Contractor ISSN 1098-1519 is a reliable, independent and secondary source published by bnp media. LeapTorchGear (talk) 17:04, 27 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 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.

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=1295833559"