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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]
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]

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]

Architecture Proposed deletions

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture

Architecture

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

Appleby Court

Wael Al-Masri

St. Patrick Church (Wyandotte)

Architecture Proposed deletions

Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

Other pages