Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture

WP:DSBUILDINGWP:DSBUILDING

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Architecture|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Architecture, buildings, construction, city planning and public spaces. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Architecture

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira Bridge collapse

(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, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Events, Transportation, and Brazil. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a big deal in Brazil. The Portuguese Wikipedia article shows the bridge was still in the news 2 months later. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction - last article was June 1.^[1] Lack of a replacement is prolonging the coverage. You can easily find a lot of Brazilian news coverage by searching Google Brazil for "Ponte Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Literally found an article from today. The fact anyone thought this was routine is very surprising to me. [2] SportingFlyer T·C 16:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A cursory look at the area geography shows the importance of this bridge and that to cross again, it's either a ferry trip or a 60 mile or 150 mile drive to the next upriver or downriver bridge crossings. This isn't routine, and this would be the equivalent of the Mackinac Bridge in Michigan being compromised, forcing a long detour or the re-launch of ferry services. It's an important transportation corridor and definitely notable. Nathannah • 📮 16:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into new article on Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira Bridge The bridge itself has a substantial Portuguese language article, and we should too; and it makes sense to me that the collapse ought to go into that article as a major section. Mangoe (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could easily have both - the bridge collapse was a major event. SportingFlyer T·C 19:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with this and would be happy to support it. Nathannah • 📮 22:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Do a bit of research before arbitrarily nominating an article for AfD. Not routine in any way. ^EF⁵ 20:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nowhere near a routine kind of news event. Nominator is a new user who has hit the ground running and creates lots of these AfDs through copy-paste or text expanding and wastes precious community resources. Difficult to detect as they keep emptying their talk page. Admin or other intervention appreciated. Also for their network. I have no clue who of these are socks of whom. gidonb (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Gidonb, the best place to report something like that would be at WP:ANI; admins likely won't pay attention to a report here. — ^EF⁵ 00:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, User:EF5. I will move it in a bit and collapse this part! gidonb (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira Bridge or create a new article at that title and merge this into it per WP:PAGEDECIDE. It's unreasonable to split the bridge's history into two separate pages if there isn't a size problem. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:31, 7 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 keep‎. Lack of English language sourcing or poorly written prose are rarely valid reasons to delete an article on a notable subject, especially when it can simply be reverted to a better written version. I'm glad to see it has already been reverted. Owen× ☎ 19:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Abbasi Caravansarai, Bisotun

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

The page is mostly made up of obvious AI-generated content that cannot be verified, as several of the links are broken and the rest are in Arabic. One section, "Analyzing Spatial and Social Dynamics of Caravanserais Using Space Syntax", is clearly made up. It is written in the format of a list, and is highly repetitive, containing very little useful information and talking at length about minor details. Buzzwords such as "vibrant", "cultural", and "enhance" compromise its encyclopedic tone. Since these features have ben present since the first version, this article cannot be reverted to a previous version to fix these issues, and a copyedit would require replacement of almost every section in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Somepinkdude (talk • contribs) 17:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sources being in Arabic is no problem, see WP:NONENG. Stockhausenfan (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Update: It looks like it's Persian, not Arabic. Somepinkdude (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it somehow does pass notability, it would still be better to restart from a redlink than to sift through what was accurate in the AI text and what was hallucinated. Bremps... 14:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revert. Clearly notable after a simple scholar search. We should not delete this on AI grounds, we can simply revert to the 7 May version of the page if it is indeed notable. The page was started in 2017 so we're not in TNT land, and the "every version of the article" is clearly wrong: see [3]. I'd revert myself but don't want to disrupt the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 22:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revert per SportingFlyer. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a heritage-listed building per WP:GEOFEAT. Now the rubbish has been reverted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:40, 7 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 keep‎. Owen× ☎ 19:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vásquez House

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

Fails WP:GNG. It's one of numerous old house. It was built, then it exists. Every locality have what they each consider historical thing and in the grand scheme of things, this building lacks globally relevant notability to have an article. Graywalls (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and California. Graywalls (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think it does fail GNG. The Arizona press book is clearly SIGCOV, and there's LOTS of books which cover it, from guidebooks to WPA books, easily accessed through a simple search. If "globally relevant" is our new standard we're in a lot of trouble. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per SportingFlyer. A landmark does not need global relevancy to be notable, this is one of many historic landmark houses in California. Passes GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's listed as a California Historical Landmark, so that's notable enough for Wikipedia. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"presumed notable" simply for being listed I believe is for national level historic places like NRHP. Graywalls (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a heritage-listed building per WP:GEOFEAT. I think state-level listings (and even city-level listings in major cities) have generally been accepted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 7 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Ascension of Christ in Warsaw

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

No evidence of notability, either in this article or the original in Polish. JohnMizuki (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble searching in Polish, but it's an architecturally distinctive modern church - I'd be surprised if there's nothing on it beyond what's in the Polish article. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the design is impressive. Iuliusnanus (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I may personally disagree with the aesthetic and sytlistic observations above, it is a notable building from Polish architect pl:Marek Budzyński. See for example: Florian Urban "Postmodern architecture under socialism: the Ascension Church in Warsaw-Ursynów" The Journal of Architecture 25(3), 2020, pp 317-346 doi:10.1080/13602365.2020.1758747 and across multiple pages in Lidia Klein's "Political Postmodernisms: Architecture in Chile and Poland, 1970–1990" (Routledge 2023, ISBN 9781000860214). Satisfies WP:NBUILD. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more input on Goldsztajn's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep follows wp:NBUILD & is notable. OPHYRIUS ^⚔ 04:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goldsztajn. Patre23 (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified by Goldsztajn in this discussion such as the Journal of Architecture and a reliable architecture book so that it passes WP:NBUILD in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: On checking the sources, (Urban 2020 and Klein 2023), I believe they establish significant coverage and notability per WP:NBUILD. Chronos.Zx (talk) 14:41, 14 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.

Stadium seating

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

No sources, doesn't explain why this is called stadium seating - most venues have seating on a slope or steps. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Stadium#Spectator areas and seating. That section alone does a sufficient job at covering this topic. Grapesoda22 (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I believe they are trying to describe a piece of theatre terminology, admittedly quite poorly, so I don't think that merge is appropriate. Ike Lek (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Theater (structure)#Seating and audience. Currently this fails WP:DICDEF, but this is mainly a theatrical term, not a stadium-related term. For seats in stadiums, these are mostly referred to as "bleachers" in the US. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, okay with merging and/or redirecting if appropriate. It's a topic that could quite reasonably be encyclopedic. The fact that certain desired information (reason for the name) is missing is not a reason to delete. Its being an unreferenced stub not significantly expanded since 2005 suggests we're not likely to build on what's there. -- Avocado (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and hope that someone adds to Theater (structure)#Seating and audience information about seating sightline and sound requirements (if it fits there). I've searched in books on stadium and on theater design, and this term, Stadium seating, is not used for the concept intended here. Theater design literature has detailed calculations for determining "sightlines" which includes determining the degree of incline for the floor. I didn't find a handy term for the concept, but I just have to believe that there is one. It may require a stand-alone article or it may fit entirely into Theater (structure). Lamona (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom and Lamona above - content can be merged as noted by Lamona if it fits. Asteramellus (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the theatre and stadium sections listed above.Metallurgist (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Stadium#Spectator areas and seating as the more expectable location to end up when typing the word "stadium" as one half of the search term. Inclusion and wikilinking on theater (structure) is optional, and if stadium seating is discussed as a theater term there, that could also work. In either case, "stadium seating" is a likely search term and we do have related content that we can direct readers towards. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Kayton House

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

It's not even a NRHP. Once upon a time, a house that is more elaborate than common was built. It changed ownership a few times and have seen several uses, like most buildings. It's now a hotel.

WP:MILL old building. I don't think it meets GNG. Graywalls (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and Georgia (U.S. state). Graywalls (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article seems to promote the developer; since it is a business, am wondering if it should be assessed per WP:NCORP and WP:NBUILDING Netherzone (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article as well as Richard C. Kessler has been blemished by public relations editing. Not surprisingly. Check edit history. I feel that notability is puffed up considerably in both cases. Graywalls (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's focus just on notability here for a second: there is a reasonable argument to keep. It's in architecture books [4] and Savannah Now article which talks about the building, but if you look closer, the vast, vast majority of sources are about the businesses/hotels occupying the building and not about the building itself. The article as written fails NCORP and it's not clear that it would pass if the article were about the hotel itself. In short, this is an article which I could see being salvaged, but at the moment it's an article on a building that's really being used to promote the hotel within the building. SportingFlyer T·C 19:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of this article fails WP:NCORP criteria; and SportingFlyer's evaluation. It's possible PROMO for the developer/business. Additionally two of the existing sources in the article are Arcadia Press publications; there have been several discussions about the reliability of this series of books that are marketed to tourists in trinket shops and convenience stores, they are not serious architectural history analysis. Netherzone (talk) 13:48, 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. ✗plicit 00:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appleby Court

(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]

Keep It is on the London Borough of Ealing's heritage list who give it a detailed description. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tæppa (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Philafrenzy. Although it's actually Enfield, not Ealing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 26 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]

Keep per the other two comments with the geographic specificity, notable enough Iljhgtn (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above comments eg a heritage site. Whispyhistory (talk) 06:00, 3 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 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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Jordan. فيصل (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Given that an administrator of Arabic Wikipedia believes that notability outside of promotional material has not been established, I am inclined to agree. I cannot validate sourcing in English to any degree that shows notability, and it would require a lot of cleanup to get this page in working order. Nonetheless, I think it could Return to Draftspace. PickleG13 (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this guy is notable. The article itself definitely needs some work, but the subject himself meets WP:GNG based on the sourcing in the article and elsewhere. [5] [6] [7]. Cremastra (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra: Citation 2 and 3 are both to middleeastarchitect.com, and therefore not independent of each other. Is there a third independent source to establish notability? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke: It was my understanding that WP:GNG requires multiple, reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject. Since the magazine seems to be independent of the subject, I don't see a problem with citing two different articles in it. If you're making reference to WP:NBASIC, which requires sources to be intellectually independent of each other, I don't see a problem there either, since the two articles are not derivatives of each other and are about different subjects. This footnote on NBASIC makes it clear what "intellectually independent of each other" means, and I don't see a problem here with that. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.. In WP:SIRS (WP:MULTSOURCES) that is explained differently, possibly because the notability criteria are stricter for organisations. I may have applied this too broadly in the past? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happens, it's currently written like a CV, and needs considerable cleanup. The sources don't look bad, though. SportingFlyer T·C 19:22, 27 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]

Keep - No reason to delete what can be reasonably improved. There is a reasonable presumption that sources that establish his notability exist. - Ike Lek (talk) 04:11, 5 July 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 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)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Christianity, and Michigan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found more in a WP:BEFORE search including sources from 1890: [8]. The book Catholic Churches of Detroit (Godzak, 2004) may not quite be SIGCOV, but there's good mention in Irish in Michigan (Metress & Metress, 2006). I stopped searching there. This absolutely needs better sources, I'm not yet convinced it's a keep but if it's not it's not too far off. SportingFlyer T·C 08:15, 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]

Delete: I can only find primary sources [9] or brief mentions [10]. Doesn't seem to be listed in the NRHP either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Events, and Netherlands. 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.[11][12] 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]

Keep I agree the sources in the article are all near in time to the event, but it's still in the news three months later, which clearly passes WP:LASTING. See [13] [14] (looks like the first one is already linked above). There's no other reason for deletion given, either, and I am not really sure why this is up for deletion when the sustained coverage is so obvious. SportingFlyer T·C 08:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, just today two articles were published in national news about the fire "Suspects of fire in Arnhem city centre remain in custody, stood 'screaming on balcony' when they heard sirens", "Remains of medieval walls demolished after city fire Arnhem" (although the latter was published by regional news on a national news site). Dajasj (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking news was published, which is irrelevant. WP:RSBREAKING. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:36, 17 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 [15] [16] [17] [18] and continues to receive ongoing coverage. The follow-up received international coverage in at least China: [19]

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]

Keep: per the sources identified by gidonb and SportingFlyer, the subject meets at least the first two points of WP:EVENTCRITERIA. With WP:SIGCOV three months after the event, I would argue that it's WP:LASTING. I'm also mystified by the WP:NOPAGE assertion - there's no justification for it.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per sources above. Svartner (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:LASTING impacts to the city's remaining cultural heritage (a decent amount was destroyed during the Battle of Arnhem), WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE past the 24 news cycles (coverage continues as of the past few weeks as per 95.98.65.177, which is very much not routine for fires), we have diversity of sources, they are as in depth as they can be given we are only a few months out of the fire. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 08:47, 1 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Roofing Contractors Association

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 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.

Architecture Proposed deletions

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture

Architecture

Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira Bridge collapse

Shah Abbasi Caravansarai, Bisotun

Vásquez House

Church of the Ascension of Christ in Warsaw

Stadium seating

Lewis Kayton House

Appleby Court

Wael Al-Masri

St. Patrick Church (Wyandotte)

2025 Arnhem city fire

National Roofing Contractors Association

Architecture Proposed deletions

Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

Other pages