Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Architecture|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Architecture, buildings, construction, city planning and public spaces. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Architecture

[edit]

Curlicue

[edit]
Curlicue (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)

Contested prod in 2011. As per WP:DICTIONARY, this has no justification to be an article. Coeusin (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Certification (New York City Department of Buildings)

[edit]
Self-Certification (New York City Department of Buildings) (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)

Mundane local bureaucratic process that is not inherently notable. Any pertinent coverage can be on New York City Department of Buildings, to where this should redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New York City Department of Buildings per WP:NOPAGE. I agree that this is not notable on its own but the topic is not currently mentioned on the DOB article at all. Per WP:R#DELETE the redirect is likely to be deleted if the redirect "is not mentioned in the target". – Epicgenius (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patit Pavan Mandir

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Patit Pavan Mandir (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 temple does not pass WP:NGEO. WP:NBUILD states that a building can only be notable if it has gotten significant in-depth coverage by reliable third party sources. Most sources used in the article are promotional and unreliable. None of the sources listed as generally reliable at WP:RS/PS cover the temple either. NGEO further states that constructions cannot inherit notability and every single source used in the article deals with the founders of the temple and their notability. This article should be deleted. — EarthDude (Talk) 04:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is a ton of scholarly writing, in English, about this temple. It's important to note that this temple has become a political hot spot, due to a tweet. [1]. Chitra Wagh, a part of the BJP party, visited the temple, and tweeted about it and it's relationship to V.D. Savarkar (the translation of her tweet doesn't match the text of the article, the article says she said "he built it" but that's not what her tweet translates as, but I'm not fluent in this language and machine translation is funky.) Members of the BJP party seem to look up to Savarkar. According to the article, the Nationalist Congress Party demanded she apologize, because they believe Keer built the article of his own accord (this is the only source I could find for this point of view, so it appears to be a minority view). Savarkar is a controversial figure with a ton of scholarship, books, and research written about him, but just about everyone agrees he was involved in the building of the temple. It's extremely well sourced in scholarship; what's not well sourced is the idea he wasn't involved. It is an important historical temple tied to breaking down caste barriers, which every source seems to confirm, regardless of how you feel about Savakar's various political points of view throughout his life. Denaar (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument is not based on policy. We do not consider subjects notable because of random tweets. Once again, you are proving my point here. Instead of attempting to prove the notability of the temple independently, you are trying to prove its notability tied to Savarkar. As per WP:NGEO, Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events. What you stated in your comment as "So the article is being nominated to remove this inconvenient fact" is nothing more than you WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS and WP:ASSUMINGBADFAITH. Should we now make Wikipedia articles for the countless temples where lower-castes are allowed entry, something which is legally mandated? The article as it exists is filled to the brim with unreliable, promotional, and ideologically aligned sources, so for you to use them to somehow establish notability proves that the temple is not notable. — EarthDude (Talk) 05:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have edited my comment based on your feedback. I'll instead ask readers to google the temple, read a few social media posts about the importance of the temple (obviously, not reliable sources) and then review your comment here: [2] and draw their own conclusions. My argument is based on WP:V. Also, WP:SIGCOV says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." And I'll include my comment here [3] that shows a long list of published books that all mention this temple, in a non-trivial manner. Some of these books are in English and provided online where they can be reviewed by fellow editors for their content. I'll add links to WP:ALLOWEDBIAS and WP:PARTISAN as well. Denaar (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S. Hassan Taghvaei

[edit]
S. Hassan Taghvaei (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)

An Iranian architect and associate professor of architecture. No SIGCOV, not notable per WP:GNG. An architect architecting. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG for his field; citations not independent of the subject. Ira Leviton (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bald arch

[edit]
Bald arch (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)

An extremely obscure term that lacks WP:N. WP:SIGCOV is not shown . Indeed, all sources listed in the article appear to not even mention the term at all: while (most) sources are valid, they discuss preservation of the arches in general. While some mentions can be found (see the analysis of the sources in Talk:Bald arch#Sources), they are IMHO nowhere close to justify the existence of the article. See also Talk:Bald arch#Wiki-archaeology for a discussion on how the article got to this point. Викидим (talk) 20:45, 31 October 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 Procedural Close. Given the renaming of the target article, the article under discussion has not had the AFD tag at its top during most of the discussion period; thus, there has not been sufficient notice to page visitors to take place in the deletion discussion. If User:Fram or any other user wishes to nominate the now renamed target article convection doors again for a new AFD discussion, they should feel free to nominate it again immediately. Malinaccier (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convection door

[edit]
Convection door (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)

Doesn't seem notable so far, basically referenced in a few articles about one project only. Fram (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Australia. Fram (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Refs. 1 and 2 do not mention "convection doors" at all. Ref. 3 does, but only in passing in the context of a single house. Ref. 4 (about this same house) is paywalled so I don't know about that one. Ref. 5 doesn't exist, seems to be hallucinated. Not a good look overall. Topic does exist but does not appear notable, and the nonexistent reference (plus other signs of AI like the bulleted "advantages" and "disadvantages" list) do not put me in a charitable mood. Not notable or WP:TNT at very best. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete (Changed by User:Archiwoman to reflect User:JanttArch's comment below.) This article has already been vetted under "Lev door" - I have simply moved it under "Convention door" in good faith as that is what its inventor calls it and it is quickly becoming the more common term used here in Australia. It is a new invention, but it is already in use by tens of thousands of people (from what I gather from related articles online) who are using the architect's open-source affordable housing plans, as well as other professionals including myself. The topic has been covered in variety of printed media in the past 2 years and I will add these relevant citations shortly. As a relatively new invention (first published 2023?), it may not be prolific online, but it certainly is quickly becoming prolific. Article is (and always likely will be) industry specific and of understandably somewhat niche interest, but so are many other articles. It is in the interest of the community (builders, architects, home owners ...) to have an explanation of the door's function readily accessible. It serves better environmental outcomes. User:JanntArch — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanttArch (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my, what a convoluted mess you have made of things. I don't know why you did it in such a complicated way, but the article at AfD should be deleted, and Convection doors (with the end-s) should be moved to the current title. Fram (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies. Wiki didn't allow me to do a clean swap, despite following the option B (updated) - I'm not sure why. Can you please fix anything that requires fixing? From my end I just wanted to move lev door to convection door - it seems to have worked anyway.
    The feedback above about references and also the format of pro's and con's was useful though - I have improved those sections and expanded references.
    Can the delete case be cancelled yet, or does the article need any immediate fixes still? I might come back to it in the coming weeks with more references, but many are in printed form only, so it will take time.
    Thank you and sorry again. JanttArch (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the issue: this new page needs need to be deleted and the original page (now called Convection doors (plural) needs to be moved to Convection door. I don't seem to be able to do it, but I have restored the content of Convection doors and created a redirect to it on Convection door. Please kindly delete the new page and move the original to that name (singular door), if you're able to?Architectsmag (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Yes please, then Delete door (singular) and Keep "doors" plural (the original article I botched), then move to "door" singular ... JanttArch (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 10:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Delete Edit: Agree to delete "convection door", then move "convection doors" to "convection door". Original: Agree with Jantarch, above. Convection doors have been only recently popularised together with their inventor's efforts in the affordable housing space (some of which are in the referenced articles). There have been adopted in many projects by now and there are a fair few houses utilising these already. Their function can be misunderstood as ventilation/cooling (like in transoms). I would recommend keeping article.Archiwoman (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete Please delete this new page "Convection door" singular and replace with the preexisting page, now titled "Convection doors" plural, previously "Lev door," so that it ends up titled "Convection door" singular. Architectsmag (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Previous statement) Lev doors article was reviewed months ago and was just fine until this move. See History of what is now Convection doors - after the less than perfect swap by JanttArch. While I don't dispute that the convection door is the more common term, and the swap as such as OK, I would ask to close this Deletion case. I checked the articles and the issues identified by others have been fixed. Ta. Architectsmag (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Previous statement)I understand the issue: this new page needs need to be deleted and the original page (now called Convection doors (plural) needs to be moved to Convection door. I don't seem to be able to do it, but I have restored the content of Convection doors and created a redirect to it on Convection door. Please kindly delete the new page and move the original to that name (singular door), if you're able to?Architectsmag (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been moved to Convection doors, plural, but the content and topic seem to be the same, so I can't quite follow why the plural form should be kept and the singular not. Regardless, please identify reliable sources covering the topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:54, 30 October 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

[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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Architecture&oldid=1320734799"