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 delete‎. ✗plicit 06:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gucci Hotel (Dubai)

Gucci Hotel (Dubai) (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)

Lacking updates for 15 years; this development project appears to have been abandoned/cancelled, as since 2010, there have been numerous reports of a "first Gucci hotel in Dubai", like [1]. Ultimately no concrete evidence this Hotel was anything more than a thought, since it certainly doesn't exist today. There are a lack of sources on this concept, doesn't pass WP:GNG. jolielover♥talk 05:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This has never existed, and the fact that someone once thought of creating it but didn't is not, and never has been, notable. (The article should have been deleted in 2017, in response to a PROD as non-notable, but for some reason Northamerica1000 disagreed.) JBW (talk) 13:20, 23 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 00:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appleby Court

Appleby Court (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)

Notability not demonstrated. Google search returns only estate agent listings of apartments in the building. The two sources only describe it in passing (where the first link can be found on The Internet Archive}. Tæppa (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 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 keep‎. I see a rough consensus here that while the tone may be promotional, sources indicate notability. Editors are encouraged to reword or remove any promotional content. Owen× ☎ 12:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wael Al-Masri

Wael Al-Masri (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)

promotional article. فيصل (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:25, 6 July 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farouk Yaghmour

Farouk Yaghmour (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 notability. فيصل (talk) 04:01, 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 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.[9][10] 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 [13] [14] [15] [16] and continues to receive ongoing coverage. The follow-up received international coverage in at least China: [17]
    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.

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=1297184136"