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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joina City

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

No real sources, no non-routine coverage coming up on Google. Originally created by an account that is now blocked for undisclosed paid editing. -- LWG ^talk 18:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- LWG ^talk 18:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Zimbabwe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 6 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) 20:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find significant coverage, fails WP:NBUILDING. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The current article depends upon a single source, which is a step up from original research. The bit about undisclosed paid editing gives off pay to play vibes. Bearian (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks SIGCOV in my searches so far, this kind of came close, but the video content featuring it has already been removed.Lorraine Crane (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page does not appear to meet WP:NRHP and WP:GNG as it is a commercial property lacking sustained coverage in independent, reliable sources.--FreaksIn 17:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per other above; fails WP:NBUILDING. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 14:25, 18 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. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magdala Moravian Church

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NBUILDING, not indication of why the building is notable. Doesn't make any claims regarding notable architecture either fr33k man 13:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Nicaragua. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edits have been made to help address the concerns mentioned. Nhtpaf (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the additional references particularly about the architecture and history and the fact that it has been featured on a national bank note, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic 306. Djflem (talk) 20:33, 9 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.

Chapra Christ Church

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

Lots of broken links on the page, I can't find much to replace them and can't WP:V the details JMWt (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and India. JMWt (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Kindly see the references prior to tag of deletion. Further this is a premium heritage institution of the district almost 185 years old and has separate commonsCategory which also made the article notable Pinakpani (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 2: three sentences about churches in Chapra, none of which are obviously this one (the origin date of the Roman Catholic church mentioned is different to that one the page)

Ref 3: my browser says not to open as the link is dangerous

Ref 4: is not obviously about this church and doesn't verify the contents of this page

Ref 5: a parliamentary mention about the Church Mission Society which is a British church society and not obviously anything to do with German Protestants or Roman Catholics

Ref 6: doesn't work for me

Ref 7: about the King Edward School and Chapra Protestant church. Not a Roman Catholic church

Ref 8: doesn't work for me

Conclusion none of these refs WP:V the content on the page. It's not clear whether any of them are about the subject or not JMWt (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Social media sites are what I can pull up... Nothing in Gnews, other than stories about conversions/mission work. I don't see this meets notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - since at least some of the citations don't match the subject, either the creator made serious mistakes, or the sources were generated by AI. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. I have copy edited for translation problems, rescued deadlink citations, removed unsourced content or content that didn't seem to fit, and added info to expand the article. With regards to the AfD nomination, an article's content must be verifiable, but do not need to be online. Thus, we don't assume the content is wrong just because its source is not online. Also, MOS says to leave deadlink citations in place, so that is normal and not a problem. Thus, I don't believe the reasons behind the AfD are justifiable. Rublamb (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after the re-write the article is much clearer and now includes the related school and details of the christmas fair with references, some offline which is permitted. So exercising WP:AGF for offline sources, deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:41, 11 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!} 23:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about a historical church (almost 200 yers old). So, it has historical importance and has encyclopedic value. Also, the references used are quite authentic. I find no reason for the deletion of the article. Rangan Datta Wiki (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above historical church.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Scholarly works (Anthropological Survey of India 2002; Bhattacharya 1981) together with a full-length 2016 Anandabazar Patrika feature and other independent historical sources provide reliable coverage, and hence the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not sure that some of these new sources provide WP:SIGCOV:

I can only see the Google Books preview, but Bhattacharya 1981 seems only to have a trivial mention and doesn't contain the word "Meherpur", which concerns me as it apparently supports In the 19th century, Chapra, Nadia was the center of missionary works for the Meherpur subdivision of the undivided Bengal (now West Bengal, India.
The "Christian fair" article makes up a plurality of the citations, but is only vaguely about the church -- it's really about the fair. I'm only working from a translation, but I also can't see that it supports, as claimed, The four-day fair blends traditional Christian and Indian traditions and has some 20,000 participants each year (though it does mention that the fair includes a specific Indian practice, singing kirtan). Even then, it seems to be local news, which isn't normally evidence of notability.
The High School history page isn't independent, as the school was founded by the church: in any case, it's WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF. Even then, the mention of the church is trivial.

The Sessional Papers source has a single trivial mention -- and is a document from the British parliament from 1904, which may fall under WP:PRIMARY.

I can't access the Diocese of Barrackpore source, but it seems likely to be a trivial/administrative mention rather than a detailed discussion.

That leaves only the Nadia District Gazetteer that I can fully vouch provides WP:SIGCOV (though even then it's not massive) within a source suitable for WP:GNG. If we only one good source provides significant coverage, the article should not be kept, but rather merged into an article about the town. I don't want to vote delete at this stage, as most of this is absence of evidence rather than secure evidence of a problem, but would be reassured if someone with access to the sources could overturn my impressions of their coverage. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I vote to keep this article because it provides valuable information about Chapra Christ Church, demonstrating its notability and relevance. With further research and reliable sources, the article can be improved to offer a more comprehensive overview of the church's history and significance. 2RDD (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: UndercoverClassicist's extant sourcing concerns need to be addressed to reach consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per HEY. Sometimes all we need is to cut out the AI drivel and hallucinated sources, and touch up the page, and we have a start article. I'm impressed with the rescue, since I had no hope. Of course it needs more work for a rainy day. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I share UndercoverClassicist's concerns about the current sources. I have not been able to find a source which clearly gets this over a WP:GNG line. However a couple scholarly searches and book searches come up with at least mentions of the church including a 1904 sessional mention in British parliament. These might be mentions, but I'm confident someone with access could find something that would get this over the line. SportingFlyer T·C 20:40, 19 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!} 22:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SC Geier House

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

I cannot find reliable independent sources to support WP:GNG. This house is located in Angelino Heights Historic Preservation Overlay Zone but does not itself have any historic recognition. It is not on the National Register of Historic Places, nor is it a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument. Sharing lot lines with two Los Angeles Cultural Monuments doesn't give this house notability. There is no reasonable redirect target where a mention of the house could be made. (The article has been tagged as unsourced since 2016, when it was published.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and California. Schazjmd (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could find no sources at all - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. GoldRomean (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources in article. I also found no reliable sources. Knox490 (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Non-notable. This is just another historic house. -- SethAllen623 (talk) 22:59, July 5, 2025 (UTC).
Delete -lacks SIGCOV in my searches so far. this is aside from the actual lack of citations in the article.Lorraine Crane (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources at all for this article, therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The biggest thing that would have helped here would have been the NRHP listing, lacking that, and lacking any other reliable sources... it fails GNG and should be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what i can see here the article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING. There is no significant independent coverage in reliable sources to show notability, and the house lacks any historic designation cause it is not on the National Register of Historic Places. Its location within the Angelino Heights HPOZ does not confer individual notability. After nearly a decade tagged as unsourced, there is no evidence that the subject warrants a standalone article. Deleting is very much appropriate. Icem4k (talk) 14:05, 10 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. 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.

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 Stadium#Spectator areas and seating. and merge viable content. There is consensus against a standalone article here, and while there is disagreement as to the merge/redirect target, there is nothing to prevent us from merging content to multiple locations. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. [4] [5] [6]. 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: [7]. 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 [8] or brief mentions [9]. 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.

Architecture Proposed deletions

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture

Architecture

Joina City

Magdala Moravian Church

Chapra Christ Church

SC Geier House

Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira Bridge collapse

Shah Abbasi Caravansarai, Bisotun

Vásquez House

Church of the Ascension of Christ in Warsaw

Stadium seating

Wael Al-Masri

St. Patrick Church (Wyandotte)

Architecture Proposed deletions

Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

Other pages