Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trimukhi_Baavdi}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trimukhi_Baavdi}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kooi-Ying Mah}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kooi-Ying Mah}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghayebi Dighi Mosque}} |
|||
==Architecture Proposed deletions== |
==Architecture Proposed deletions== |
Revision as of 00:37, 16 April 2024
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:
- 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.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/32px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png)
watch |
Architecture
- 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 delete. Owen× ☎ 20:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
List of tallest structures in the Commonwealth of Nations
- List of tallest structures in the Commonwealth of Nations (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)
Subject doesn't seem to meet the WP:NLIST as this grouping is not discussed in secondary sources. Randam (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete It's not hard to look at whatever respective country articles you want to compare; there's no indication the Commonwealth has anything to do with skyscrapers. Reywas92Talk 22:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Reywas92. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly we won't create a List of tallest structures in the BRICS]. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Per NOTDIR. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 03:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Save Max Sports Centre
- Save Max Sports Centre (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)
Semi-advertorialized article about a local sports facility, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for sports facilities. As always, sports facilities are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them, but this is "referenced" entirely to primary source content self-published by the city council, with absolutely no evidence of media coverage shown at all -- and while it was only just recently tagged for notability issues, it has existed in this state since 2008 without seeing any better referencing added. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
*Delete This fails WP:GNG as none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth. The article is not even written in encyclopedic way. It is written as notes- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 09:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)- GiantSnowman (talk · contribs), I have provided sources below. Cunard (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
- Jen, Leslie (2007-11-01). "Bend It Like Brampton". Canadian Architect. Vol. 52, no. 11. pp. 22–26. ProQuest 213347214. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
According to the About page, "Canadian Architect is the journal of record of two national professional associations: the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) and the AIA Canada Society and is the official magazine of each association – carrying both the RAIC Journal and the AIA Canada Journal within the pages of Canadian Architect magazine." Leslie Jen is the former associate editor for Canadian Architect.
The review notes: "A predominantly white and silver colour palette is offset by the judicious employment of vibrant saturated colours in a plethora of applications, colours specifically chosen to communicate the active and energetic colours associated with athletics and athletic attire. To that end, horizontal bands of coloured glass are used sparingly on the curtain walls to animate the faades and to create jewel-toned splashes of light on the interior. High-contrast black and white tiles define the floor surfaces, a clever reference to the colours–or lack thereof–found in soccer balls and referee jerseys."
- Craig, Sheri (June–July 2008). "Putting the community into the centre". Building. Vol. 58, no. 3. pp. 20–23. ProQuest 229980346. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
The article notes: "One example of the imaginative use of materials is Brampton, Ont.'s $26.5-million Soccer Centre, completed in May, 2007. The 152,000-sq.-ft. building includes four indoor soccer fields, bleachers, change facilities, a community wing and main lobby. It was designed to be easily converted to hockey and other indoor sports and is sized and scaled to operate with four independent programs running at the same time, including trade show events and other community activities."
- Brampton Guardian articles:
- "Soccer at the centre of new state-of-the-art recreation facility". Brampton Guardian. 2007-06-24. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
The article notes: "The new Brampton Soccer Centre offers more than just soccer but make no mistake-- soccer will be at the centre of it all. ... The new facility, at 1495 Sandalwood Parkway East, at the intersection of Sandalwood and Dixie Rd., will be a year-round home for local soccer groups. Four indoor field houses are expected to get plenty of use. Each field measures 85 by 200 with seating for about 350 spectators."
- Frisque, Graeme (2018-06-30). "What's Going on Here? Renovations underway to transform Brampton Soccer Centre into multi-sport facility". Brampton Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
The article notes: "The Brampton Soccer Centre was opened in 2007. The more than 120,000 square-metre property features four turfed field houses in a 14,200 square-metre indoor facility. The centre also currently features exterior fields and amenities including a splash pad. The city is looking to expand on the current soccer, dance and youth programming currently available at the site."
- Frisque, Graeme (2020-10-31). "Brampton Soccer Centre getting new name and sponsor". Brampton Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
The article notes: "The Brampton Soccer Centre won’t be called that for much longer. The complex located at 1495 Sandalwood Parkway E. will be renamed the Save Max Sports Centre after the City of Brampton signed sponsorship agreement for the exterior naming rights with Save Max Real Estate Inc. The deal, announced by the city in a release on Oct. 26, is for 15 years and $2,512,500."
- "Soccer at the centre of new state-of-the-art recreation facility". Brampton Guardian. 2007-06-24. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
- Jen, Leslie (2007-11-01). "Bend It Like Brampton". Canadian Architect. Vol. 52, no. 11. pp. 22–26. ProQuest 213347214. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
- Keep per sources above which show notability. However, the article should be renamed as Brampton Soccer Centre as we do not use sponsored names for soccer stadiums. GiantSnowman 11:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per sources shown. Meets WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep According to sources found by Cunard, subject seems to meet WP:GNG. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete The sources show this is just a run of the mill municipal sports complex. Fails WP:AUD of WP:NORG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- The article in Canadian Architect, the journal of record of two national professional associations—the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) and the AIA Canada Society—meets WP:AUD.
However, Save Max Sports Centre is not required to meet WP:AUD. Save Max Sports Centre is a building. The relevant guideline is WP:NBUILD, not WP:NORG (which WP:AUD is a part of). Cunard (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- The article in Canadian Architect, the journal of record of two national professional associations—the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) and the AIA Canada Society—meets WP:AUD.
- 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.
- 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 keep. Sometimes relisting helps come to a consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 07:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Hotel Timor
- Hotel Timor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Travel and tourism, and Asia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to be sufficient sourcing, this is particularly good. It's got quite an interesting history with the role it played in a number of conflicts in East Timor, which has been covered in numerous sources. AusLondonder (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The sourcing from AusLondonder convinced me that the hotel is notable for the history of East Timor. The hotel is the location of flashpoints in the conflict such as reported in the Guardian 24 years ago. It is also the location where the referendum results are being read. I am quite convinced that the place itself is notable. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I added additional sources, including the www.dn.pt article and the Guardian article, but never came back to !vote. This hotel is a character in the story of East Timor's independence, as supported by reliable sources. Oblivy (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as it has enough sources and seems notable Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Hey man im josh (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
House of Hiranandani, Chennai
- House of Hiranandani, Chennai (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)
Previously deleted and salted at House of Hiranandani. This is not quite substantially identical to the deleted version, but I see no new in-depth sources to establish notability * Pppery * it has begun... 18:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comments -it is just on the cusp of significant coverage. I'm not sure which way and would like others' input. Bearian (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Fenestration testing laboratory
- Fenestration testing laboratory (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)
I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. I would be interested to hear from anyone who works more in this area. Boleyn (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- delete I would suggest the article's original author, whom I suspect worked for Fenestration Testing Laboratory, Inc. to judge by their first edit and by the style of the article. Along the way, someone decided that Fenestration Testing Laboratory was a term and not the name of a company, and so, here we are. I don't think the company is notable, and the notion of testing windows is unremarkable. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 merge to Montasola. Consensus is against retention as a separate article Star Mississippi 02:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Santa Maria Murella, Montasola
- Santa Maria Murella, Montasola (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)
Initially proded with the reason 'This church is not notable enough (WP:GNG). Doesn't even exist in Italian Wikipedia'. I do think that English Wikipedia notability guidelines are among the strictest out of all Wikipedias, namely because English is a common internet language. Therefore, I am not sure if it can pass, given that no other Wikipedia (even Italian) has this. Per WP:NBUILD:
Buildings 'may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Also, are sources only in Italian (or only in a language other than English) allowed? JuniperChill (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. JuniperChill (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Unfortunately, Italian heritage listing is not great, but in most other western countries a medieval or Baroque church would undoubtedly be heritage listed and would therefore pass WP:GEOFEAT so I think this is certainly notable. Yes, of course non-English sources are acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here? Although this Wikipedia is likely the strictest out of all, we somehow allow special and very old buildings here even though there is only one source, and that is only in Italian. So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable? This article may not be meet GNG and it is a very obscure place. This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable. This can also apply to Houghton Mill where it is a National Trust site, but only has a source and very few people know it (I just looked up random NT sites that are not very popular) so should be gone. JuniperChill (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable?
Yes, of course they are, per WP:GEOFEAT. Houghton Mill is a Grade II*-listed building.I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here?
Yup.This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable.
That's not really relevant to Wikipedia notability. Others do. This article could certainly do with more sourcing, but buildings of this age are definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here? Although this Wikipedia is likely the strictest out of all, we somehow allow special and very old buildings here even though there is only one source, and that is only in Italian. So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable? This article may not be meet GNG and it is a very obscure place. This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable. This can also apply to Houghton Mill where it is a National Trust site, but only has a source and very few people know it (I just looked up random NT sites that are not very popular) so should be gone. JuniperChill (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Romanesque church probably built on the ruins of a temple, Roman age or earlier. It means a 2000 years or more old building. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Montasola. With deep respect for the experienced editors that have previously contributed to this discussion, I can't find myself agreeing with the Keep !votes above:
- WP:NBUILDING specifically states that
Buildings ... may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability
(my emphasis). The Keep !votes above recognise that Santa Maria Murella might have historic/architectural importance, but ignore the lack of coverage, which is a case exactly anticipated by the relevant notability guideline here. Nobody has presented any "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources", and the best I could find was an entry from an office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy, which I'm not sure whether we can regard as "third-party". - Even if notability is met, WP:NOPAGE suggests that if covering a topic as part of a parent article would improve readability, we need not have a standalone article. It seems that the existing sources have little to say that can sustain a lengthy article on Santa Maria Murella: the church and its history can be adequately summarised in a few paragraphs at Montasola. Seeing as Santa Maria Murella, Montasola claims that
the church...was located at the site of the Roman city of Laurum
, which seems to be its most important feature according to previous !votes, the church is probably easier understood in the context of Montasola's history. In my experience, this is not uncommon for non-notable churches (and let's be honest: many places have churches that date back several centuries, though the current buildings might not be the original ones). - As an alternative to deletion, a merge allows the preservation of the page history should
significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources
emerge per WP:NBUILDING.
- I note that Rococo1700 created articles for two other churches in the town (Santi Pietro e Tommaso, Montasola, San Michele Arcangelo, Montasola), which have nothing to support their notability except an entry on the local council's website. On their userpage, they write that their
aim for new entries is to try to have at least two "independent" sources
, so I suspect this collection of articles results from inexperienced editing, and may also need to be reviewed. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Also, yes, I think articles containing only non-English-language sources are perfectly fine (cf. WP:NONENG). Here's one I made earlier. The non-availability of English-language sources suggests that the topic might not be the most interesting for English-language readers, but it doesn't detract from the topic's notability. Cf. WP:INTERESTING:
Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals and our readers and potential readers include everyone on the planet. Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere.
IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect to Montasola, until such time as more/better sources turn up (in whatever language).Ingratis (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Source: Italian, gives details on the church's history.[1] Rupples (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- That source is from a office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy. The homepage explicitly makes clear that the project is a census of Italian churches,
creat[ing] a national database of Italian churches
. Your mileage may vary, but to me, this doesn't constitute an independent source, and consequently it doesn't contribute to significant coverage or notability. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- That source is from a office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy. The homepage explicitly makes clear that the project is a census of Italian churches,
- Merge to Montasola I agree with IgnatiusofLondon that as a separate article this will at best be a stub. The only sources I can find are mentions in sources that are essentially lists of churches in Italy. I also think that information seekers are better served to encounter what little data there is in the context of the Montasola article. Note that the Montasola article itself is only a few sentences, not surprising since it is a small town of ~420 population. The Italian WP article has quite a bit of history of the place but none of it is referenced so we can't even make use of that, and the church is not mentioned in that article. Lamona (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge as suggested to Montasola. There is too little to support four or more stubs about a small commune off the tourist track. Also, it would fail my long-standing standards for churches, having only one factor for notability, its age. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 redirect to Konyaaltı as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 01:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Heart of Antalya
- Heart of Antalya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails general notability guideline and notability guidelines for geographic features (specifically WP:NBUILD). sources in article are primary or unreliable (daily sabah being a government-owned website, so rather tentative). search for sources finds similar unreliable sources or promotions for tourism to antalya. ltbdl (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ltbdl (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Travel and tourism. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Obviously not notable on its own. Aintabli (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect to Konyaaltı, where the ferris wheel is located, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I agree with ltbdl's analysis of the sourcing as not being sufficient. I find the Daily Sabah article to contribute to notability but it is the only such source in the article. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Fails in WP:NBUILD. Svartner (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Heart of Antalya is currently mentioned at Antalya#Main sights. ltbdl (talk · contribs) and Svartner (talk · contribs), would you support a merge/redirect to Konyaaltı or Antalya#Main sights per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion? Cunard (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging Aintabli (talk · contribs), would you consider a merge/redirect instead of deletion? Cunard (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Konyaaltı: per Cunard as an ATD. Merging would be unbalanced in the target article. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Ağa hamamı
- Ağa hamamı (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, as I pointed out at the talk page a while ago. The only source used here is the hammam's own commercial website, which is not a reliable source. It also makes the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that the hammam was built in 1454, the same year of the Ottoman conquest of the city, which would make it one of the oldest Ottoman buildings in the city, if not the oldest. This has no support in actual reliable sources, which make no mention of this (e.g. see references at Tahtakale Hamam, which discuss the oldest hammams and other known Ottoman structures from this era). Judging by the choice of source and by the page creator, I'm also starting to suspect this was a WP:COI. R Prazeres (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. R Prazeres (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)- Quick note: if anyone is looking up Ağa hamamı in sources, keep in mind that there is at least one other "Ağa hamamı" (or "Aga Hamam" etc) in the Samatya neighbourhood of Istanbul and there may be other hammams with the same name elsewhere. R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. The Kapıağası Yakup Ağa Hamamı, often just known as Ağa Hamamı. And that one is far more notable and appears in guidebooks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp: I think the comment below was to check explicitly if you support keeping or deleting? Or no opinion? R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral. I didn't express an opinion one way or the other. I merely commented. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp: I think the comment below was to check explicitly if you support keeping or deleting? Or no opinion? R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. The Kapıağası Yakup Ağa Hamamı, often just known as Ağa Hamamı. And that one is far more notable and appears in guidebooks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What outcome would you like to see happen?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Covered by timeout, stating "built in 1454 by Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror and was used privately by the Sultan and his male heirs." Clearly is a significant term of use. This in turn points that the place has some strong historical context. You would have thought with that, this should have plenty of WP:OFFLINE sources. Lonelyplanet snippet, cityseeker snippet. arnoldreview? Covered by [2]. Obviously it needs better sourcing, but due to the little coverage there is, which shows it's historical age and aspect shows there should be plenty more sources out there that should be able to use. Unless it's all bullshit history trying to get people through the door. Well, that's possible, but that really requires a different kind of investigation. For now, I am on the little of what google provides. Govvy (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SIGCOV requires that a topic "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This isn't the case here. Of course a business can be found in blogs and review sites, like those you've linked; my local pizza restaurant would fit that criteria too, but that doesn't make it WP:NOTABLE. The last link you provided ([3]) is also not the same place, it's the Samatya hammam mentioned above.
- As mentioned, the historical claim has no support in RS. Even the normally quite thorough Turkish Islam Ansiklopedisi has nothing about it. Whether the claim is deliberate bullshit I won't say, but it certainly doesn't satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY. R Prazeres (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, the claim made in the article is false. Turkish Airlines has covered some hamams of Istanbul, and notes that the building itself was indeed built in 1454 as a hunting house. However, it only became a hamam after 1923. So that would perhaps make it the oldest building that has a hamam in it, but not the oldest operational hamam in the city. Basically some smart wording/PR trick coming from the website of the business that runs it to label this as the oldest, which we have taken over directly without elaboration because.... the creator of this article is likely the owner himself. Sources published post-2014 (i.e. since the creation of this article) paraphrase about the same 3 sentences found in the Turkish Airlines blog, so I won't bother to list them here.
- So I looked for sources before that date, and the only thing that came up was a book from 2010 on Istanbul hamams by the municipality (which I would consider to be much more reliable than any source mentioned above). There are 2 hamams in the book named "Ağa Hamamı", ours is located on page 41, easily identifiable as the book mentions the street its located on. This book gives a completely different history: it was built in 1562—already a hamam—and the income was used to fund the Fenerbahçe Lighthouse. Both the inside and outside have been renovated several times and there is nothing "historic" about the building anymore. The book also says that the building is described in the Istanbul Encyclopedia of Reşad Ekrem Koçu. I'd say that the building is notable, but not the business itself. Since our article currently only serves the latter with incorrect information, I don't think this can stay without a TNT. So yeah, delete unless anyone wants to clean this up. Styyx (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for all this great research (that 2010 book is a nice find). I just want to add: even a claim about the building itself being a hunting lodge built in 1454 is undoubtedly wrong, and a Turkish Airlines blog wouldn't count as reliable source for that either. R Prazeres (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have found the Istanbul Encyclopedia on archive.org. Volume 1, pages 241–243 are about this hamam, if anyone wants to use it. It indeed notes that it's a 16th-century building, so I think this confirms that the story in the article is fully made up. Styyx (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails GNG and NGEO. Single source in article is to the subject's own website. BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if WP:SIRS is found, Styyx's TNT idea may be the best solution, if sources are ever found it can be created without the baggage. // Timothy :: talk 23:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Clear case of WP:PROMOTION by single purpose editor who only has created this article. - DonCalo (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Trimukhi Baavdi
- Trimukhi Baavdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources Sohom (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sohom (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:RS. It's a hole in the ground. There's no allegation that this well is anything more than one of hundreds of thousands of wells, even if someone famous paid for it to be dug. There are no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Kooi-Ying Mah
- Kooi-Ying Mah (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)
Only 2 articles link to this. Nothing in gnews or Australian database trove. 2 small mentions in google books. Fails WP:ARCHITECT. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Architecture, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not ready to vote Keep or delete but want to comment that it is irrelevant if a modern day Australian is not in Trove. Trove is not the only place to look especially if the person is fairly young. Trove newspapers and magazines are generally "digitised up to 1954, with select newspapers and gazettes contributed up to present day (rights and funding permitting)." As an example, a better place to look would be in recent Australian architectural journals through EBSCO or JSTOR.LPascal (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- She gets no hits in Jstor. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've just checked JSTOR and from the list I could find, it does not index Australian architectural journals (except for Australian landscape architecture) and the architectural journals it does index are usually UK or US and limited to pre 2020). So I'm just pointing out that when you search for a younger, living Australian in databases to see if they have been written about, you have to understand that some databases mostly include non-Australian reference sources and may be limited in their date coverage, so that you can't assume that a person is non-notable because they don't appear in certain databases of reference sources. If you can find a better list of journals on JSTOR, I'd welcome receiving the link because it's difficult to find.LPascal (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- She gets no hits in Jstor. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like many AFDs these days, we need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still needs more participation. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, nothing popped up on TWL or google. Mach61 16:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Per nom. No new sources or arguments against the nomination were presented. Svartner (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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
- CCG Profiles (via WP:PROD on 7 September 2023)
Categories
Requested moves
See also
Transcluded pages
The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects
- Deletion sorting: Visual Arts (WP:Visual arts is a descendant of WP:Arts)