Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture

WP: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

Foresters House

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

Article about an office building, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for office buildings. As always, buildings are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis of their architectural, historical, social or cultural significance -- but this doesn't make any meaningful notability claim over and above existing, and is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability. The only reliable source present here at all is an insurance industry trade magazine, which is here solely to tangentially verify the name of the company's CEO rather than supporting any information about the building in its own right.
Since it's the headquarters of a company that does have an article under WP:CORP terms, any information we need about its head office can easily be contained in the company's article -- but in order to qualify for its own standalone article as a separate topic from the company, it would need a much stronger notability claim, and much better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to have sufficient notability to pass WP:NBUILD. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear notable, could not find any meaningful sources. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Delete. I'm not in favor of the current list nor re-naming it, to include "damaged", because that word is subjective. On the other hand, "destroyed" is pretty objective: it's gone, it's not there anymore, other than rubble or a faceless, limbless, and genital-free sculpture. I would support keeping it if someone made a real effort to rescue this by taking out the objects that have been "damaged" (whatever that means) but not destroyed. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 10 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 [1], book mentions [2]. 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]

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]

Keep: Passes WP:NARCHITECT as the lead architect on multiple notable buildings/projects. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:57, 11 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]

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 [3][4] (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]

Architecture Proposed deletions

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture

Architecture

Foresters House

List of destroyed heritage

Carson Community Center

Stanley Shaftel

Joanna Bacon

Imperial College Halls of Residence

Mount Sinai South Nassau

Architecture Proposed deletions

Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

Other pages