Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by The BO77! (talk | contribs) at 19:47, 20 July 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation fortitude(1958).). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Arts. 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|Arts|~~~~}} 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 Arts. 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

Arts

[edit]

Operation fortitude(1958)

[edit]
Operation fortitude(1958) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The title “Operation Fortitude (1958)” strongly evokes the famous WWII deception, but the article instead describes a Jordanian operation in July 1958. That mismatch between title and content misleads readers. The BO77! (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

God of the Sullied

[edit]
God of the Sullied (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)

Non notable book, promotional article. Sources are press releases, paid for spam articles. See also:

  • Delete. Sources 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 are not WP:SIGCOV of the book itself, but some other topic (the author's publishing house, the author's other books, etc.). Sources 4, 9, 10, 12, and 13 (same source as 4) are overly positive and promotional reviews with WP:NEWSORGINDIA issues. Source 2 is a broken link that I can't access through the Internet Archive. I can't find any proof of Source 11's existence. That leaves Source 8, which requires payment to view and wouldn't satisfy WP:NBOOK by itself anyway. Astaire (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Are the Days (novel)

[edit]
Gone Are the Days (novel) (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)

Non notable book. Fails GNG and NBOOK. Sources are poor to unreliable, primary PR links by Wp:NEWSORGINDIA.

See also:

The Indian Story of an Author

[edit]
The Indian Story of an Author (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)

Non notable book, fails Wp:GNG, wp:NBOOK and wp:SIGCOV. Possible COI & UPE. UNI is paid for press release, New Indian Express is an interview, and rest two are promotional articles by wp:NEWSORGINDIA.

See also:

Diary of a Whimsical Lover

[edit]
Diary of a Whimsical Lover (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)

Non notable book. Fails Wp:NBOOK, Wp:GNG and Wp:SIGCOV. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Countless Grief. Zuck28 (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first reference is a broken link, and I can't find it on the Internet Archive.
  • The second and fourth references have the same issues that I raised over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Countless Grief - lack of a reviewer byline and overly promotional content, respectively.
  • The third reference is a brief three-sentence plot summary without expressing any opinion on the book. Doesn't qualify for criterion #1 of WP:BKCRIT.
Astaire (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Countless Grief

[edit]
Beyond Countless Grief (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)

Non notable book. Fails Wp:NBOOK, Wp:GNG and Wp:SIGCOV. No sources except two poorly written press releases/non-bylined promotional pieces and an unreliable dead link. Possibly a case of COI/UPE. User: Bond111 and their alternative account user:Dial911 were heavily involved in the creation and editing of the articles related to the author Gaurav Sharma (author) and his non-notable books. Zuck28 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AAFT

[edit]
AAFT (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)

A promotional article about a non-notable institute. The article is heavily based on unreliable and primary sources. No secondary reliable source available to establish Wp:SIGCOV, just passing mentions and trivial mentions.

If we remove, press releases, primary sources and blogs, merely passing mentions are available in actual news portals or wp:RS. Fails Wp:NSCHOOL, WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The institute's founder's article was also deleted recently. Zuck28 (talk) 09:03, 9 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) 11:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoryPhillips(DJ)

Arts Templates for deletion

[edit]

Arts Proposed deletions

[edit]
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists


Visual arts

[edit]

Rubén Ochoa

[edit]
Rubén Ochoa (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)

Fails WP:NARTIST and GNG. This 2009 article was created by a user listed as Rubenochoa. It is not surmising to consider that the subject is connected to the article. A subject creating their own (personal) international encyclopedia profile is "frowned upon" by normal practices for a reason. There are COI and neutrality concerns. This was mentioned on 10 January 2009. Concerns become more evident when the content mentions things like "international recognition", which is not supported by BLP "sources". It is even more concerning when a person appears to have less than (or even approaching) bare notability and the article is presented as a resume and pseudo biography. There is no common biographical content at all, let alone supported by reliable and independent sources. Note: While my search engine could present location bias, I could not find any mention on any important artist or international list like "Twenty Iberoamerican artists", "Artists you should know", Artists from Latin America or even List of Latin American artists. Otr500 (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarjin Kumar

[edit]
Sarjin Kumar (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)

There is little coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources under the name “Sarjin Kumar.” Most info comes from social media or entertainment sites, which doesn’t sufficiently establish encyclopedic significance. The BO77! (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @The BO77! I think the page i have created needs more citation and can be improved. But placing a deletion tag maybe avoided and you can ask for improvement. Thanks! Gooi-007 (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! @Gooi-007 but don’t need to remove the deletion tag yourself an admin will close the discussion as “Withdrawn” and remove the tag once processed.The BO77! (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: My source analysis given below
No. Source Type Independent Reliable Significant Coverage Notes
1 Filmibeat – "Who is Sarjin Kumar?" Entertainment listing ✅ Yes ❌ No ❌ No Low-quality site per WP:ALMGS; routine coverage; no depth.
2 ABP Nadu (Tamil) Regional news ✅ Yes ❌ No (Brandwire-tier) ❌ No Trivial mention of entry to a reality show; no biographical depth.
3 Mirchi9 (hypothetical) Entertainment blog ✅ Yes ❌ No ❌ No Unverified; generally unreliable for establishing notability.
4 Social media mentions (Instagram, YouTube) Self-published ❌ No ❌ No ❌ No Fails WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB; unusable for notability.
5 TV appearance on *Cooku with Comali 6* Primary source (TV show) ❌ No ❌ No ❌ No Being part of a TV show cast is not sufficient for notability without secondary coverage.

All sources fail to provide the in-depth, independent, and reliable coverage required under WP:GNG.Thilsebatti (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I concur with other !voters here, that although the AFD nom was withdrawn by the nominator, there is no indication that this person meets notability criteria per WP:GNG, nor are a notable photographer, thus failing to meet WP:NARTIST, nor is there evidence that there is the kind of significant coverage in fully independent reliable sources covering his acting career to meet WP:NACTOR. Deleting it at this time would save community time, because it would just be renominated if the withdrawal was put into effect. Netherzone (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irony of Negro Policeman

[edit]
Irony of Negro Policeman (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)

Fails WP:N. There are many reliable sources that mention the painting, but they lack significant coverage. Several of the sources currently in the article don't mention the painting at all, but are just used for general info about the painter, Jean-Michel Basquiat. The ones that do mention it only do so with one or two sentences, or, in one case, is a press release. Some of them looked to me like clear indications of notability at a first glance, such as NPR's "Jean-Michel Basquiat Painting Sells For Record $110.5 Million", but at a closer look, it turns out it is about a different painting.

I searched a bit and mostly found more of the same: reliable sources that only mention the painting in passing - confirming its existence, but not notability - and a few self-published, unreliable sources with analysis. The best I found was this, which contains a couple of paragraphs about Irony of Negro Policeman. I'm unfamiliar with the publication, Swamp, and can't tell if it's a reliable source or not. Nevertheless, if that is the only source that maybe contributes to notability, it's too little.

It seems like this was created some time ago as part of an effort to give as many Basquiat paintings as possible their own articles. I'm sure quite a few of them indeed are notable, but this one and potentially others don't seem to be. Uriahheep228 (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I've added some sources, but a search of the painting in g-books and g-scholar reveals a lot of mentions as well as a decent amount of in-depth discussion. This and this each have several paragraphs analyzing this particular piece. this describes the piece as one of his most well-known works, which seems to be supported by the fact that it's singled out in several newspaper reviews about gallery exhibits. Zzz plant (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first of those sources has almost two paragraphs. The second has about one and a half. The third is behind paywall, so I can't tell. It's still pretty weak, but if there are more sources with a similar amount of coverage they could build up to notability, at least if it's not the same information that is repeated. I also got a lot of search hits about gallery exhibits etc, but they lack significant coverage. They just mention that it was part of an exhibition. Uriahheep228 (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I take the point about us not wanting separate articles about too many individual paintings but the politically charged subject matter makes it plausible that this is significant enough for an article. The Books and Scholar searches show that sources are covering it as more than just an item on a list of works. They are talking about it individually, about what it means as a statement and as an artwork. I don't think we can delete this. A merge to Jean-Michel Basquiat could be arguable but I think there is potential for this to be its own article. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zzz plant. There isn't much unambiguous SIGCOV, but there are so many sources that provide ~1-2 paragraphs of analysis that I think they togther add up to a GNG pass (here are a couple more: [4] [5]). This journal article is the strongest source I could find. MCE89 (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third of those sources looks good, but the first two only have one sentence each, not one paragraph. With the article in Radical Philosophy and the two books Zzz plant pointed to above we have three sources that I would say are somewhere between trivial and significant coverage. The finds so far have been promising, but I still think it's below the threshold for individual notability. Most of the content here is about Basquiat and general themes throughout his works. There isn't really more to cover about this painting in particular than what can be said in a sentence or two in Basquiat's article. Uriahheep228 (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick D. Kim

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Nick D. Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The lack of independent sourcing to establish notability is still an issue since the 2009 discussion. Sources are still not present to establish his notability.

Since that discussion, he has been mentioned in many books, but those are passing mentions crediting him for the pictures used in them. Roast (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Critic Review Aggregator

[edit]
Cult Critic Review Aggregator (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)

Promotion for non notable publication. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Noting WP:NEWSORGINDIA, refbombed to PR rehashes, dead, and primary sources. Even most of the PR rehashes are for other things and do not even verify content here. Part of a promotion platform with the likes of Tagore International Film Festival, World Film Carnival Singapore, Luis Bunuel Memorial Awards, Cult Critic Movie Awards, Calcutta International Cult Films Festival and Virgin Spring Cinefest. Buy an award, earn a review on Cult Critic. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Visual arts, Entertainment, Games, Technology, Computing, Internet, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: using this revision for source numners.
    Sources [1], [2], [7], and [13] make brief insignificant mention of subject (simply mention that Cult Critic gave movie awards at a film festival). Similarly source [9] makes brief mention as part of a listicle article and so doesn’t give notability.
    Sources [3], [6], [10], [11], and [12] are simply reviews or lists of reviews/rewards. This means they are not independent and do not give notability.
    Sources [4], [5], [8], and [13] all were inaccessible to me and so I can’t comment on them.
    My own attempt at WP:BEFORE using google news and a standard google search did not reveal sources that could convey notability. However, it did reveal that Cult Critic has ran a couple of film festivals/awards cerimonies. If someone can convince me that this conveys notability I may be inclined to change my opinion (and thus !vote). Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 20:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With the film festival/award, it's somewhat a case of "who is reporting and in what context". It's not ideal, but an argument could be made for notability if the award results were reprinted by multiple notable outlets. This specifically refers to reprints like this, where a major outlet reprints the list. The gist behind this is that major outlets like say, Variety or Locus are going to be selective in what award results they reprint, so they're not going to reprint some random film festival or award. For example, Dead Meat is a notable YouTube channel and has a pretty well received awards ceremony, but few outlets reprint the results because even with the channel's substantial following they just can't justify it. (Even Bloody Disgusting only reported on the awards once.) Of note, what wouldn't count towards this would be local papers writing about how their local person won an award. The focus there isn't really the award and local coverage of that nature is typically seen as a weak source at best.
    With that in mind, I took a look for the award/festival in specific and didn't find anything that would establish that the award is notable. No opinion on the aggregator as of yet, but the site's award/festival cannot help in establishing notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A search didn't really take long, as there is really nothing out there. What coverage exists is pretty light and not enough on its own to establish notability. I'm aware that the site is based out of India and that Google doesn't always properly search Indian sources, but there's not really anything to help argue that more/better sourcing exists. If anyone can find anything, I'm open to changing my argument. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on Emily.Owl (talk · contribs)'s excellent analysis of the sources above! Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless Flag

[edit]
Homeless Flag (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)

Deleted in 2023 via unanimous AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/Homeless International Flag). I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV in independent sources to back up claims of this flag being since adopted outside of this one particular non-profit or the person associated with it. I have decent access to Swedish newspaper archives and cannot find any mentions. Also worth noting that author has declared COI. Zzz plant (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Homeless Flag meets WP:GNG through independent, reliably-sourced coverage:
- National broadcaster TV4 – “Kavian var hemlös – nu lägger han all kraft på att hjälpa andra” (3 Dec 2021): at 07:00 – 07:30, the host zooms in on the flag and explains its public display while Ferdowsi adds that “people see the Flag and Hemlösa.se every morning".
- Daily newspaper Dagen – “Premiär för melodifestival för hemlösa” (4 Feb 2015): reports an event where the flag served as the official emblem, quoting politicians and describing its symbolism.  
- The emblem is twice trademark-registered with the EUIPO, confirming its distinctive, legally protected status.
These sources provide significant coverage, not mere passing mentions, in broadcast and print media wholly independent of the subject, and demonstrate real-world adoption beyond a single NGO. In line with WP:SYMBOLS a unique flag with documented media attention, public use and formal recognition is prima facie notable. The article should therefore be improved, not deleted. Csamu88 (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the previous commentor's rationale. This article does seem to meet the WP:GNG guidelines and has been used widely for notable events pertaining to the topic. I definitely believe this article should be significantly improved but I think that it is too notable for deletion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - Trademark has no bearing on notability, and the above characterization of TV4 source is a stretch - it's briefly visible and briefly discussed on a talk show segment. Even if they gave more in-depth coverage, it's shown by Kavian Ferdowsi (the person who designed the flag) during an interview, so it's a primary source - which can't be used to support GNG. Dagen shows only that the organization associated with the flag uses it at an event they're organizing. I couldn't find any RS suggesting that anyone aside from Hemlösa or Kavian Ferdowsi has adopted this flag (or even paid much attention to it). Zzz plant (talk) 00:25, 16 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) 18:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

[edit]

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

[edit]

Visual arts - Deletion Review

[edit]


Architecture

[edit]

Guntram Weissenberger

[edit]
Guntram Weissenberger (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)

Single-source biography of a deceased Austrian-American architect that does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Source is an article in an obituary in an Austrian newspaper. A search for his name only turns up reporting that an individual, presumably his son, had invested in the Phillies. I could find no reviews or other indications his autobiography has sufficient notability to generate an article. nf utvol (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Geier

[edit]
Guy Geier (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)

non-notable, fails WP:GNG Polygnotus (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kramat of Sheikh Suleiman (Bainskloof)

[edit]
Kramat of Sheikh Suleiman (Bainskloof) (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 references. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only anecdotal reports kept on family websites and other self-published sources. In the main, what is recorded is oral history and there seem to be no reliable sources or peer-reviewed scholarly studies. Fails WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:NGEO. Geoff | Who, me? 18:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chapra Christ Church

[edit]
Chapra Christ Church (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)

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]

  • 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]
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]
  • 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]
  • Keep. Doing my own research on the subject, I also find an abundance of RS SIGCOV establishing notability per GNG. ZachH007 20:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Proposed deletions

[edit]


Categories

[edit]

Requested moves

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Transcluded pages

[edit]

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

Other pages

[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikiproject deletion sorting/visual arts Wikipedia:Wikiproject deletion sorting/architecture

((Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting|arts)) ((Category:wikiproject arts|deletion))

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Arts&oldid=1301610964"