Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

WP:DSARTS

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:

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|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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Arts

Arts Council~Haliburton Highlands

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

Arts council that fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. A BEFORE search, I could not find any other sources that weren't liked to the organization or a brief, trivial mention, it has got some local news coverage, but I'm not sure if that can cement notability. Not to mention almost the entire article's tone is promotional. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Arts Council- Haliburton Highlands has received independent + detailed in local news at the very least [1][2]. The events they put on in the region have also received non-trivial coverage [3]. They received direct support from the Canadian government to start an ongoing symposium on performing arts in rural communities [4]. News about the organization has been presented in the Toronto Star as well [5] .This coverage spans at least a decade, so it's not a small burst. Between the primary source of its website and local coverage that is sometimes included in major Canadian newspapers, it seems like the council is notable + provides a significant amount of arts programming in the Haliburton region. I vote to keep though I agree the article should be updated.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply sources 1,2,3 and 5 come up with 404 pages, are they availble on the Wayback Machine? ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I malformatted the links. The links are fixed and the pages are still live. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is more of a promotion for the orgnaization than anything else. Was created by a single pupose editor in 2009 with not much editing from any other editor since. Probably COI issue. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The original author itself was banned in 2009 for being an advertising account, something seems fishy here. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A lot of the article text concerns the history of arts initiatives in the area prior to the formation of this Arts Council: such content probably belongs in Haliburton_County#Arts_and_culture (suitably referenced, though). That leads to a wider suggestion that a merge and redirect may be a possibility? AllyD (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with this outcome. There is probably enough coverage available to make a standalone page about the arts in the Haliburton area if the section in Haliburton County becomes too lengthy. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoryPhillips(DJ)

Arts Templates for deletion

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 2#Template:UK underground

Arts Proposed deletions

Visual arts

Monument of Liberty, Chișinău

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

It does not seem to have ever been actually constructed. I can't read Moldovan/Romanian, but based on Google Translate, it seems like it was never constructed, and given the death of the head architect, it might not be anytime soon, if ever. Street View ~2019 also shows no signs of any monument near the Moldovan Parliament. At present, the article describes nothing about the actual sculpture and is essentially about a concept. Please let me know what you think. Eelmealdeal (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Moldova. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as of 2024 it hadn't been built [6]. There seems to have been some controversy over the suceeding governments dragging its construction which would add to notability in case it is built, but I don't think the topic is currently notable, and can be covered in the 2009 revolution's article. Super Ψ Dro 13:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

House of Fine Art

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

Was deleted back 2018, with a "The" in the title, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The House of Fine Art. Justlettersandnumbers's rationale from back then still holds. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Museums and libraries, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, placing "The" in front of the article name does not suddenly make an article notable. It was not notable when deleted in 2018, and remains so today after a google search. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's nice of Onel5969 to draw attention to my nomination of this for deletion in 2018 (thank you, 1L!). However, what stands out in that discussion is not my small contribution but the clear understanding of policy shown by two editors, Jytdog and NitinMlk. I encourage those who plan to contribute to this discussion to read through the previous one first. The new article seems to be a borderline WP:G4 candidate, by the way, but probably best to let this run now that it has started. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a speedy delete per WP:G4 would make sense, but I think it is looking like it will be deleted anyway if the current trend on this AfD holds. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. It seems this gallery was not notable in 2018 and is still not notable. The sources consist of a short Forbes contributor PR piece on the gallery; the KIAF Seoul pieces is a modified press release; ArtNet is a subscription service for galleries and their listings, their "reviews" are not the same as serious art magazines and besides, it's a dead 404 link; The first Financial Times source is an article about NFT's with a mention of HOFA in one sentence, it is not an article about the gallery; the second FT source is about the artists, not about the gallery itself. Netherzone (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't read the FT refs, don't have a subscription; I've removed artnet as a perennial non-WP:RS. The other three refs do not begin to show notability as expected for WP:NCORP: I see nothing to suggest that vipnews.gr is reliable (no imprint/about us/other indication of editorial control); the Forbes ref is a lifestyle blog post; and the KIAF Seoul ref is a press-release, which presumably they're hosting because the gallery had a booth there in 2022. I'm really curious about the assertion that it was "one of the first art galleries to offer its collection in the form of cryptocurrency", cited to the Alan Knox Financial Times ref: how exactly did that work? – you bought a painting or sculpture, and got given a bit of bitcoin instead? I seriously doubt that the FT says anything of the sort, but – as before – can't access it to be sure. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers, I'm also not sure how NFTs and bitcoin work in tandem in the art world, but the Financial Times article only says this about the gallery: “Viale really resonates with the millennial generation,” says Elio D’Anna, co-founder of Artcels, the online art investment platform behind the exhibition at Hofa Gallery. (After exhibiting in London in the spring “Kouros” travelled to the Greek island of Mykonos for another show.) Also at Hofa were a glossed-porcelain Jeff Koons “Balloon Rabbit”, a Yoshitomo Nara woodcut and relief prints by the cult African-American artist Nina Chanel Abney, along with a couple of works by Banksy — signed screen prints of “Girl with Balloon” and “Grin Reaper”. which is not about HOFA gallery itself, but about the artists and the cofounder of of an "online investment platform". It is just a name check for the gallery, not sigcov. Netherzone (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arc of Statehood

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

I could not find any non-routine coverage of this beyond the site for the capitol grounds themselves. Likely better incorporated into a list of public art installations in the city. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also searched for independent significant coverage but was unsuccessful. It does not make sense to merge/redirect it to a list of public art installations because it is not art, it is a series of informational plaques or "markers" with text about each county. That is not the same as public art or public sculpture. Even Washington State doesn't describe it as art, and the Fact Sheet lists the "artist" as "Unknown", so for all we know it could have simply been designed by the sign shop or foundry who cast the plaques. The sourcing consists of one sentence in an Arcadia Press book, (there have been many discussions about the reliability of Arcadia books which are mainly written for tourists); the listing in the Washington State database; and a draft of a proposal for Heritage Park itself, which is a work-for-hire pre-design study between the capitol and two consulting groups. Maybe it could be merged into the Washington State Capitol article in the subsection Art and monuments where it is already mentioned? Netherzone (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heritage Park (Olympia). Most of the sources I've found only give it a passing mention in the context of the park. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Shaman (Hansen)

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

Could find no other coverage of this beyond the capitol grounds website. Even searching the artist's name and shaman just brings up various other shaman-related sculptures. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has been in the state capitol collection since 1971, as recorded here. Although I don't know how this represents a Shaman. A state capitol collection is notable for that fact alone - the artwork, owned by the entire state, was selected for the purpose of presenting credible sculptors and their work to the state as a whole. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's a niche SNG I'm unaware of, "being in a state capitol collection" does not confer notability. Secondary sources are always needed to establish notability. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (Changing from ~~Merge~~ based on coverage found on newspapers.com.) The sculpture itself is not notable, but the sculptor who made it is. There is a very brief stub on the sculptor James Lee Hansen that could use improvement. Merging the content about this sculpture into that stub would be a win-win alternative to deletion. The sculpture itself fails WP:GNG and is solely sourced to the non-independent commissioning organization. Netherzone (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage here, here, here, here, here and here. Enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Somebodyidkfkdt None of those links work. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, they should be fixed now. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh nice, good catch; withdraw. My apologies! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and nominator's withdrawal. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Lee Kelly, 1973)

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

I'll admit this one is pretty difficult to search for, but I don't think it's notable; the site for the capitol grounds appear to be the only real coverage of this piece of public art. Belongs on a list of the artist's works and a list of public art installations in the city. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the work is cited as being among the Washington Capitol collection, a prominent sculpture collection in the Northwest U.S. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to agree with the nominator that the collection is the subject. Uncle G (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of public art in Olympia, Washington, which Uncle G did a nice job touching up. The offical source is not even substantive. An artwork does not inherit notability from its location or the collection it's in, that's no basis for single-sentence, single-source pages. If the collection is prominent, you are welcome to expand Washington State Capitol#Art and monuments as well. Reywas92^Talk 13:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources shared on the article's Talk page and now included as bare citations in the entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Give us one fact from those sources that is neither in the Washington State official blurb nor the Crooks book. (Hint: Historians can read newspapers, too.) Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mysteries of Life

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

A non-notable statue by an artist that seems notable yet has no page - a pretty sad occurrence. Apologies for spamming this with all of these Olympia public art installations - most (but not all) appear to be non-notable. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has a good source showing its existence on the lawn of the state capitol. What, did you just go down the navbox and nominate everything for deletion? If the state of Washington believed that the statue (what there is of it, who decided to place these things there?) was notable enough to place on its lawn then notability, per visual arts criteria of proof of existence in a museum collection, has been achieved. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through the navbox, since there were a number of similar one or two sentence articles, but I didn't nominate everything as some of the pieces seem to hit independent notability. Per WP:OR, pages need multiple secondary sources, and I just can't find anything except the Washington Capitol (which are a single source and a primary source at that) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This work is not in a museum. It is outside of a building that has the evocative name Office Building Two. Uncle G (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of public art in Olympia, Washington, which Uncle G did a nice job touching up. The offical source is not even substantive. An artwork does not inherit notability from its location or the collection it's in, that's no basis for single-sentence pages. If the collection is prominent, you are welcome to expand Washington State Capitol#Art and monuments as well. Reywas92^Talk 13:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sea to Sky (sculpture)

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

Another Olympia public art installation. This one has two sources, but one of the sources has a single sentence about the piece. Should be included on a list of public art installations in the city (and a page for the artist, who appears notable) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boiler Works

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

Olympia public arts installation with one source. Again, should be simply included on a list of public art installations in the city. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woman Dancing

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

Only one source and it's primary - from the state government itself, which put it up. The artist is probably notable and it could probably be featured there, but I can't dig anything up about this particular statue. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the capitol mention and that a state capitol's statue collection is by definition notable. As long as the existence and placement of the statue is obtained then the visual art criteria has been met. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (not an !vote at this time) - WP really should have an article on the sculptor, Phillip Levine, who was a somewhat well-known figurative sculptor. I'm fairly certain he would meet NARTIST criteria for notability. If there were such an article to redirect this to, that would make the most sense to me. A quick BEFORE didn't find any independent sources on this specific sculpture. Netherzone (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage here, here, here, here, here and here. Enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Somebodyidkfkdt and GNG ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the excellent research by Sombodyidkfkdt. Those sources would be a helpful addition to add to the article for readers of the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oop, good catch and good expansion; apologies for missing that one. - Withdrawn by nominator. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaics in Asia

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

I don't see how this is one topic, and not just a grouping of topics across two characteristics (mosaics from certain regions / influences, and certain regions in Asia) which have no real common ground. I could find no good sources for this topic as a whole (looking for this gave results about mosaics in Asia Minor, which is not the same of course). Fram (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Asia. Fram (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the article lacks a common bond of mosaics in the different regions, I think some of the content is good. Mosaic is overwhelmingly about Europe (and it should make better use of summary style with its subpages), but the Middle Eastern and Western Asian section is relatively short and there is nothing at all about East or Southeast Asian mosaic art. This is a new article from a new user, so I would recommend they consider merging some information or working on it as a draft. Reywas92^Talk 15:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification and splitting into separate articles may be best. Fram (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced and very detailed, the stand-alone visual arts article presents the topic in an adequate encyclopedic fashion. Not long enough for a split, and no need to think along those lines. The page covers what it intends to cover, per title. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are about the topic (as a whole, not about some subtopic)? Fram (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources tie together around their common connections: mosaics and their existence in the continent of Asia. Asians artistic crafting of mosaics make for a well-done informative article. Nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really how it should work though. If there are no sources treating them as one subject, we shouldn't either. It gives the impression that there is some common characteristic setting them apart from mosaics in other continents, as studied or described by reliable sources. Fram (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't found any sources covering Mosaics in Asia as a whole (in a fairly minimal search, I must admit). I agree that sections of this article are worth keeping, perhaps as separate articles or in the Mosaic article. I did note that searching various terms, including "Asian mosaics", brought up several sources about Central Asian mosaics, both ancient and modern, eg 14th and 15th century mosaics in Samarkhand and Bukhara, and 20th century mosaics on pre-fab apartments in Tashkent [7]. This topic does not seem to be covered anywhere, not even in this article on Mosaics in Asia (and their existence brings into question the statement in the Mosaic article that "Mosaics generally went out of fashion in the Islamic world after the 8th century." RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - I understand the rationale for the nom, but I lean towards an "Ignore all rules" K*eep if there is such a thing. (Note this is the first time I've ever suggested IAR.) When I consider if the the encyclopedia is better or worse off with this new article, ripe for improvement, the solid answer is that it is a positive contribution that betters the encyclopedia. I agree that there is some good content here and that the overall subject is relevant to WP's readership. The article is only one week old, and can be improved in terms of sourcing and format. A quick BEFORE finds many articles on JSTOR about mosaics that exist in Asian countries, but I have not had the time to read them all to understand if they discuss the entire Asian continent as a whole. Perhaps this is an emerging field in art history/archaeology. I think the article needs more time for the new editor to develop it, but it is not so "broken" that it needs to be draftified at this time. A simple "under construction" maintenance tag may be the solution. That and encouragement directed to the newbie editor, Jaynentu who created it. Netherzone (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate all the editors for your time and feedbacks. I do find more valuable sources for developing to improve the content. Certainly more time and suggestions would help to organize this work. Jaynentu (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaynentu, do you have sources that you can present here that discuss the topic of Mosaics in Asia as a whole? That would be really helpful. Netherzone (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks well sourced. The topic is broad. Can be improved either way. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maronite flag

AfDs for this article:

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

Was recently redirectly through an AfD, then recreated by the lone voice in that discussion in favor of keeping. The same issues still apply. There is zero in-depth coverage of a flag by this name. Restored the redirect and was promptly reverted, so here we are again. Pinging all the editors who participated in the first AfD: Syphax98, Red Phoenician, OwenX, Toadspike, 4meter4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of additions since the redirect. It looks like several sources have been added. "Complete Flags of the World" is a one-sentence mention that the cedar tree has long been a symbol of the Maronites. "The orange and the ‘Cross in the Crescent’: imagining Palestine in 1929" is a good journal article, but where it mentions Maronites it is mainly focused on the cedar symbol and how it ended up on the Lebanese flag. "Why Do Catholics Eat Fish on Friday?" is the same, explaining why the modern Lebanese flag has a cedar on it. "Double vision in Beirut" is a one-sentence mention in an opinion piece. Page 262 of "Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World" does describe a "Maronite flag", but doesn't seem to (from my searching in the Google Books preview) spend more than a sentence describing the flag itself. "Flags and arms across the world" seems to have almost exactly the same text as "Why Do Catholics Eat Fish on Friday?", which does mention that the Maronites used a white flag with a cedar on it but not much more. I can't search in the "National Eucharistic Congress" source and jeancharaf.org seems to be a dead link. Searching for "drapeau" in "Voyage en Orient, Volume 1: Les femmes de Caire; Druses et Maronites", the only mention about this subject seems to be the sentence "Ce sont les signes qui distinguent les drapeaux des Maronites et ceux des Druses, dont le fond est également rouge d'ailleurs." This sentence doesn't have any context and is very confusing to me – I suspect there was an accompanying image not present in the linked version. The last two sources are cited for mentions of the flag, not analysis, so I presume they contain none.

Some of these sources may already have been present in the pre-redirect version, it's hard to tell. Anyhow, I still don't think the concept of a Maronite flag has received any coverage beyond passing mentions, mostly in sources explaining how the modern Lebanese flag came to be. Thus, I still believe this should be redirected to Flag of Lebanon. Toadspike [Talk] 17:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charaf’s source is available via archive as sourced and National Eucharistic Congress is open to search. As for Nerval you have to read the entire quote: “—Allez où vous voudrez, dit-il; tous ces gens là sont fort paisibles depuis que nous sommes chez eux. Autrement, il aurait fallu vous battre pour les uns ou pour les autres, pour la croix blanche ou pour la main blanche. Ce sont les signes qui distinguent les drapeaux des Maronites et ceux des Druses, dont le fond est également rouge d'ailleurs.” Red Phoenician (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What is the Wikipedia policy for dealing with this situation? Should @Red Phoenician have gone to deletion review even though the page was not actually deleted but rather redirected? Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review (DRV) is only for reviewing whether the close accurately reflected the consensus reached in the discussion, not for relitigating the issues discussed in the AfD, so it is probably not what what Red Phoenician was aiming for. Also, if the recreated page is a duplicate of the original, it can be speedy-deleted under WP:G4, but the new sources probably make this different enough that G4 does not apply here. Toadspike [Talk] 01:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The preferred method for recreating a previously deleted page is to create a fresh Draft, then get it reviewed at AfC. I do see a lot of G4 tags in draftspace, but if I can see significantly improved (especially newer than the AfD) sourcing, I will decline the speedy. BusterD (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of AfD is not so unusual a situation. Red Phoenician's re-creation of this page (from redirect space) about a marginal topic was fine, six months after deletion. We always say redirects are cheap (meaning resource-effective). I have nothing to say on the merits of this AfD, but the re-creation is in-bounds, IMHO. If after this page is again redirected, the redirect may be protected, also IMHO (or RP may be pblocked from the space). BusterD (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The previous AfD had a clear consensus to redirect, and I don't think it should be possible to overturn it in this way (with limited engagement with the new AfD) without the restorer of the redirect having made any effort to demonstrate that the changes to the article now establish notability. I.e. I don't think it makes sense to close this as "no consensus" simply due to lack of participation, since there is a preexisting consensus. Stockhausenfan (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The original reasoning was that there were not enough sources to back the existence of a flag. Now that there are plentiful sources on multiple flags the goalposts have been changed to require sources of even more detail. Must there be an entire book dedicated to the history of the Maronite flag? The sources include many vexillological books/articles which should be adequate. Furthermore the claim that the Maronite flag is identical to the Lebanese flag is disingenuous for two reasons. Firstly, it implies that Lebanon and its flag were created solely for the Maronites and disenfranchises other religious groups of Lebanon. Secondly, this implies that the Maronite Cross flag and flag under Bashir Shihab II have any relation with the Lebanese flag which is not true and to paint them as such would be misinformation. Red Phoenician (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flag of Lebanon: and page-protect so that we don't have to go through this yet again four months from now. Consensus was very clear in the November AfD, and none of the facts or sources have changed to vacate our previous decision. I assumed good faith in the previous AfD, but can't see this as anything other than POV-pushing now. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This page has enough sources to justify its existence

Maropedia1 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flag of Lebanon per OwenX. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't really see an issue with the page, it has its sources expanded upon and serves as a decent page about a flag of a notable and historical group of people in Lebanon. If the Assyrians, Arameans, and Chaldeans have entire pages dedicated to their own flags, surely a Maronite page should be allowed too. EpeBah (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flag of Lebanon, though we still need an analysis of the Charaf source mentioned above. Red Phoenecian's clarification concerning the Nerval source does not change the assessment that the mention in this source is only passing and not enough to establish notability. Although there has been a flurry of keep votes recently, I'm still of the opinion that the arguments they presented are not substantial enough to overturn the preexisting consensus established in the earlier AfD. Stockhausenfan (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Dallas Contemporary (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review

Architecture

List of destroyed heritage

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

This page is a complete mess, as shown by the multiple tags on it. The first section alone (about Egypt), features a pyramid partly demolished in the 12th centure, but still standing 800 years later; and stolen objects, which may or may not have been destroyed. For many of the more modern buildings which have been demolished, there's nothing to suggest they were particularly important heritage buildings. It may be better to split this up, and have separate articles (where they don't already exist), but with clearer criteria. Blackballnz (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Blackballnz (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment: a list of destroyed heritage (sites? culture? the lede is conflicted) appears compatible with WP:STANDALONE, and the size and edit history of the article indicate some appetite for its existance. is deleting the article the best action, or would a judicious scrub of irrelevant or uncited materials, like the pyramid or modern buildings you mentioned, not suffice?

fifteen thousand two hundred twenty nine (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: page could use some curation, but it seems ok. More than just a list of bullet points, there is some discussion around each item in the list. Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per OaktreeB. Each entry has to be sourced though. Azuredivay (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anything on the list that links to an article confirming the information presented, should remain on the list. I see there is an image of the Great Sphinx of Giza, but no entry for it. The article says "destroyed" in its name, not just damaged, although some entries show things that were only damaged. Having the name List of tangible heritage objects or locations destroyed, damaged, or stolen would be too long though. Dream Focus 17:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is not grounded in policy. The list does need work, but that should be done through the talk page. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename List of destroyed or damaged cultural heritage to address the first of the nominator's objections. The second can be handled by removing ineligible entries (e.g. theft), which I have done. Splitting into sublists (e.g. war-related, natural disasters, buildings vs smaller objects, etc.) is a separate issue from deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Community Center

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

Community Center that fails WP:NBUILDING and WP:SIGCOV, and has been unsourced since 2008. This article was also PRODed back in 2008, which was withdrawn for an AFD that never happened. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Shaftel

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show they pass GNG. The two obits are paid spots. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I can find is brief mentions of him in real estate notices as the architect of a house or housing estate, and brief quotes from him about the features of his designs. None of this amounts to the significant coverage needed for WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE notability. And his academic position does not have any evidence of WP:PROF notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than a trivial amount of mentions in older architectural magazines [8], book mentions [9]. Clicking on the Gbooks link above brings up many mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link appears from its thumbnail to be a business directory and does not allow me to see more than the thumbnail. Your second is exactly the sort of thing I meant by "brief mentions of him in real estate notices as the architect of a house or housing estate"; I do not think it constitutes in-depth coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that if you just click on "Find Sources" on this nomination template, several options are there to find the sources. — Maile (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lagos Marriott Hotel

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

A non-notable chain hotel. If we're applying WP:NCORP to it, it fails since all the coverage of it is WP:ORGTRIV, press release-driven news about its opening. If we apply WP:NBUILDING, what's required is significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. We don't have that for this. Searching for additional sources beyond the two in the article, which read like regurgitated press releases, I find only WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA sources that do not appear independent from the hotel ([10], [11], plus material that is over-the-top WP:PROMO like [12] and [13]) or hospitality industry WP:TRADES publications ([14]). What I don't see is anything that's explains why this Marriott is anything other than a WP:ROTM corporate hotel. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and Nigeria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to Marriott Hotels & Resorts or other suitable page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not mentioned on that page but if it is added I have no objection to a redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Marriott Hotels & Resorts, which is probably one of the most notable hotel chains in the world, with 608 locations around the globe. The Lagos Marriott Hotel opened in 2021. — Maile (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marriott Hotels & Resorts – Per above. Svartner (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marriott Hotels & Resorts: as an ATD. Sources that turn up from my end are not independent enough to meet NCORP. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Bacon

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

I created this article at the request of the Women in Red project. User:Billsmith60 doesn’t think she is notable but their own WP:AFD submission was incorrectly formatted so I am bringing it here myself for the community to decide. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Architecture. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lead architect on several notable projects and clearly of high standing in her profession. PamD 07:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (as per my comments on article Talk page; I am grateful to user:Theroadislong for their assistance in reopening my proposal): this looks like a clear candidate for deletion. Being nominated for a professional award does not make someone notable. All sources cited are from professional journals or merely Companies House regarding her business interests. She is known only within that professional sector (architecture). Notwithstanding improvements to address the lack of articles on women, Wikipedia rules have to be adhered to: if this article stays, every British managing partner in a business will want one Billsmith60 (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing is sourced to Companies House and she seems to easily pass WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable, sources independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate and full name were sourced to CH. I found an alternative source for her name whi h does not include birthdate, now removed. PamD 17:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial College Halls of Residence

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

Little on the page to suggest that this topic has independent notability outside of Imperial College London. Suggest at best it could be merged because of WP:NOTEVERYTHING but also suspect that detailed guff about student accommodation is unlikely to be notable even there. JMWt (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose At least two of the current halls of residence and one former hall discussed in the article are notable as listed buildings per WP:GEOFEAT:

"Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable."

There is also evidence of notability for other halls, with significant coverage in the Evening Standard and ITV News, as well as in the trade magazine The Construction Index. That much of the page is sourced back to Imperial does not affect notability. Robminchin (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as listed buildings per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need for a separate article about student accommodation. Beside that, it looks rather promotional due to the fact that most of the sources are related to the subject. The Banner talk 17:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Coins

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

Article is based on a single, primary source. There doesn't appear to be any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that would establish notability to warrant a standalone article. Dfadden (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Australia. Dfadden (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Willoughby Condominium

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

Lacks notability and appears like self-promotion MrTaxes (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete a run-of-the-mill high-rise. There's no actual claim to notability given and the coverage is local. Mangoe (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just your average random skyscraper in the outskirts of the District of Colombia. The coverage is all local and I am questioning the notability. An editor from Mars (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vlastimil Koubek, the architect, where the project is already mentioned.Djflem (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Sinai South Nassau

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

There is nothing indicating this hospital is notable. This article has not been improved since it was created nearly a decade ago. The corporation fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. An alternative would be to have it redirected to its parent corporation, Mount Sinai Health System. Aneirinn (talk)

Oppose. Firstly, NCORP is the wrong criteria for physical structures like hospitals. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE, because a quick search shows clearly that the hospital has significant third party news coverage [15][16] (and that's just the first two results). WP:ATD demands at least a suggestion to merge to the parent health system, but the hospital itself is notable. oknazevad (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitals in the United States are corporations, this is a well known fact. This one particularly is a nonprofit corporation, so WP:NCORP, which applies to corporations and organizations, does apply. The WP:DOGBITESMAN routine coverage and press release that is mentioned above from your "quick search" does not do anything to contribute to its notability. Per WP:NOTADVERTISING, " Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." The nomination has been changed to reflect the possible alternative to deletion. Aneirinn (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is an article about the company the runs it, or is it about the facility? Northern of those are "dog bites man" unless you think every news story that's not a national headline is such (and they're not, by longstanding consensus that local news contributes to notability). oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, it is commonplace for hospitals to operate as their own entities, for tax purposes. Aneirinn (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address my question. oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you did not read WP:NCORP before publishing the above statements. If you read WP:NCORP, you would discover that WP:NCORP explicitly mentions hospitals in the guideline. Aneirinn (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Medicine, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Merge >>>Mount Sinai Health System (location, history, size). Djflem (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States. Aneirinn (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree NCORP is not the correct guideline here - the sources presented above are more about the building itself than a specific business, and the corporation/business would be Mount Sinai, not the specific hospital. Operating as its own entity for "tax" reasons isn't really why we have NCORP. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hospital itself is its own corporate entity. That is how it is structured in large companies that own hospitals in the United States that are variously known as "health systems" or hospital networks. Thus WP:NCORP is applicable. It is also without a doubt an organization, which WP:NCORP concerns. Aneirinn (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article even refers to what the hospital complex was before Mount Sinai took over. The article is clearly about the complex. SportingFlyer T·C 00:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP even explicitly states "This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, political parties, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, for-profit educational institutions or organizations, etc." Aneirinn (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well we also have WP:NBUILDING, which simply requires WP:GNG. Considering this is clearly an article on the building and not on the business, since it covers the building throughout its organisational history including as a former independent hospital, we don't need to apply the higher standard. I can't access historical American newspapers at the moment, but I bet it should be easy to find coverage from 1928. SportingFlyer T·C 04:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is severely lacking in significant coverage, one of the integral requirements for WP:GNG. It is a list of its name changes. Hospitals are not inherently notable for being located in New York, this one is certainly not. Aneirinn (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has been there since 2016. Poorly sourced, does not look particularly notable and seems like a directory or random trivia on a building. Ramos1990 (talk)
Delete: This isn't the Mayo Clinic or the Hopitaux de Paris, it's just a run of the mill US hospital. The building might be notable, but doesn't appear to be. I can only find things about it being bought by the Mount Sinai group. I don't see notability and the sourcing used doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the more recent comments favoring a Delete !vote appear to be on the money. This article is from over 9 years ago and there does not appear to be any sigcov to further cement notability here. That isn't likely to change any time soon. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you look at local news from in and around Long Island there are several articles discussing the expansion that has occurred and will continue into the near future at this hospital. I added the section regarding the new ER and soon to be added pavilion. I'm sure there will be added services into this new space and more to add to this article. At the very least the deletion could be delayed to see where the hospital goes. Cactusyield (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla house

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

Does not appear to be an official prototype (vs Cybercab) or proposed product other than appearance at a couple random shows. Not significant coverage to support notability on its own. Could just be mention in Tesla Energy. ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This prototype/concept has been shown in numerous Australia cities and at two LA Auto Show. Wikipedia has many pages of prototype/concept products. Wikipedia does not exclude prototypes, upcoming products if they are noteworthy. This is noteworthy prototype, not from some small un-noteworthy company.

If you deleted this page you need to remove other prototype/concept pages (go remove these first):

WikiHouse Not a product - go remove in first!
Xanadu Houses
Futuro
Edison Portland Cement house
Volvo VESC
Porsche 989
Pontiac Club de Mer
Pontiac Bonneville Special
Mercedes-Benz C111
Mazda Suitcase Car
Airbus CityAirbus
Big Mac (computer)
City of Everett (aircraft)
Fiat ESVs
Lanchester petrol-electric car
Pacerailer
Single-hole cassette
Xerox NoteTaker
Yehudi lights

and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telecineguy (talk • contribs)

Note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a very convincing arguement. Need to show the merits of this particular subject and whether it meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing a clear GNG pass - the sources are all promotional or are about a different house. (I actually thought this was going to be an ill advised AfD about the house in Smiljan.) SportingFlyer T·C 02:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 19:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with either Tesla, Inc or if they have more than one product that never made it out of concept/prototyping, perhaps that should be a standalone article. Brenae wafato (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources listed in the article are promotional. The recently added source from "gatorrated" is an unreliable blog post with what appears to be an AI generated image that only exists on the blog. I am not seeing any developments on the tesla house since ~2018.

Agree with Zala that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument to keep. Many of the articles listed by telecineguy are well-sourced and establish the notability of their subjects with independent, non-promotional material (e.g. City of Everett (aircraft)) not to mention many led to actual products.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ WikiHouse is not a product, why are you not marking it "Delete"? This is not a AI generated image. It was shown at two LA auto shows and in many Australia cities.Telecine Guy (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so, I did a strikethrough on your duplicitous "Keep" since you already have that above. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not every product made by Tesla is notable, especially if it's just a prototype. Bearian (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a fair bit of coverage of its tour of Australia when I search for "Tesla tiny house", eg this article in Architect Magazine [17]. Whether it's enough for an independent article, or whether it could be merged to Tesla, Inc. (where it currently isn't mentioned at all), I'm not sure. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's better to look for new sources as RebeccaGreen already did and the one from Architecmagazine is a decent one. I also found and added CNET https://www.cnet.com/home/electric-vehicles/tesla-tows-tiny-house-around-australia-with-model-x/, PCmag https://uk.pcmag.com/science-space/90704/tesla-is-touring-australia-with-a-tiny-house, Mashable https://mashable.com/article/tesla-tiny-house-solar-energy. Unicorbia (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are more sources, and I don't want to spam with them here. Also, one should google "Tesla tiny house" instead of "Tesla house" Unicorbia (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion as to keep or not, but feel the info should be merged somewhere if not straight up kept. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are some calls to merge the article, but I don't think there's enough input to see a consensus for that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone been able to find articles that show notability? The brief time period where tesla showed off a prototype (summer/fall 2017) has quite a few in reliable sources, but most just say the tiny house was on tour and maybe give a brief description of the Tesla products included (Tesla solar Tesla battery Tesla model X Tesla electronics etc.). This just seems like tesla was promoting their available products, not truly developing a tiny home for production. There is not much in the way of continued coverage, and more recent articles tend to point back to events 2017.

Politifact covered recent social media posts claiming that Elon Musk was building a low cost house and stated there is not evidence and that the 2017 house was "only a model." Sticking with my earlier vote.

From what I've seen, I'd argue this was more of an event than a true prototype. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found a review from 2021-2022 on Fatherly https://www.fatherly.com/gear/elon-musk-boxabl-house. It provides some details and general comparison and so on. Might be good for notability issues. Unicorbia (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your source is about Musk's Boxabl house, not the "Tesla house" demonstrator in the article under discussion. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Anonrfjwhuikdzz's observation that this was more a way to showcase Tesla products than an actual prototype tiny house for production. (This article [18] says "Inside the house is where Tesla wants to seal the deal. There's a mobile design studio and a configurator that buyers can use to create a custom solar solution for their own home.") As such, it would probably be best to merge it to Tesla Energy. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Proposed deletions

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

Arts

Arts Council~Haliburton Highlands

Arts Templates for deletion

Arts Proposed deletions

Visual arts

Monument of Liberty, Chișinău

House of Fine Art

Arc of Statehood

The Shaman (Hansen)

Untitled (Lee Kelly, 1973)

Mysteries of Life

Sea to Sky (sculpture)

Boiler Works

Woman Dancing

Mosaics in Asia

Maronite flag

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review

Architecture

List of destroyed heritage

Carson Community Center

Stanley Shaftel

Lagos Marriott Hotel

Joanna Bacon

Imperial College Halls of Residence

Big Coins

Willoughby Condominium

Mount Sinai South Nassau

Tesla house

Architecture Proposed deletions

Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

Other pages