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. 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 [1]. 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 ([2]) 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 keep. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Low Pavement, Chesterfield
- Low Pavement, Chesterfield (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 have not been able to find significant coverage of this road in reliable sources. The sources in the article are listings of individual buildings, but there's no evidence those buildings meet WP:NBUILDING. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Low Pavement is mentioned in various directories from the 19th Century, two of which I've just added, not to mention 5 (technically 6) different listed buildings on the small street. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Listings in directories are not significant coverage, and having listed buildings doesn't establish notability of the street that they're on. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have now added a couple of books that noted during the 1970s, the town council intended to demolish the buildings on the street, however decided the buildings together were considered to be of 'township merit' which is why the buildings are all listed around that time period. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Those sources seem to be talking more about the neighborhood overall, rather than Low Pavement, which is mentioned but not described in detail. The false bomb threat is a minor aspect of the street and doesn't contribute to the street's notability, nor is a bomb threat in itself notable per WP:1E. Additionally, while Chesterfield Market is likely notable, that doesn't mean Low Pavement is notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Added another notable event, the then Prince Charles and Princess Diana opening The Pavements Shopping Center on the street in November 1981, another surely notable event. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Those sources seem to be talking more about the neighborhood overall, rather than Low Pavement, which is mentioned but not described in detail. The false bomb threat is a minor aspect of the street and doesn't contribute to the street's notability, nor is a bomb threat in itself notable per WP:1E. Additionally, while Chesterfield Market is likely notable, that doesn't mean Low Pavement is notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have now added a couple of books that noted during the 1970s, the town council intended to demolish the buildings on the street, however decided the buildings together were considered to be of 'township merit' which is why the buildings are all listed around that time period. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- There need to be sources showing that the street is notable, which means that it has significant coverage in reliable sources. The fact that an event occurred on the street does not mean that the street itself is notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- 13 Grade II listed buildings, 2 Grade II listed Light posts, one of the oldest open-air markets in the country. the current king of England opening an indoor marketplace, and a recent bomb threat, I think that's plenty enough to prove the street's significance, but I'm of course happy to let others decide on this. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Listings in directories are not significant coverage, and having listed buildings doesn't establish notability of the street that they're on. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The number of historic buildings along this street show clear evidence of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- We still need SIGCOV to keep an article, rather than merging or some other ATD. Have you found any? voorts (talk/contributions) 15:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - While I'm not sure the bomb threat or the royal visit (both of which have happened in lots of places) contribute much to the Notability!, the listed buildings do. The buildings themselves meet WP:NBUILDING, by virtue of their listed status. The street is in a conservation area, [3] (see pages 27-8), which gives it both status and protection, and it won an award, [4]. Overall, I think there's enough. KJP1 (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Notability is not inherited: having listed buildings and being in a conservation area does not make a street notable. By that logic, almost every street in every city would be notable because there's always something historic on most streets and many streets are in some type of designated arwa. Additionally, the inner city revitalization project won an award, not the street itself. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
By that logic, almost every street in every city would be notable because there's always something historic on most streets and many streets are in some type of designated arwa.
That is very clearly not true. The vast majority of streets, even in countries with very long histories of built heritage like the UK, do not have a single listed building on them. And you're misunderstanding the argument. A street isn't inheriting notability from the historic buildings along it. The historic buildings along it shows that it is historic and therefore notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)A street isn't inheriting notability from the historic buildings along it. The historic buildings along it shows that it is historic and therefore notable.
That's circular: the street is notable because it is historic, it is historic because it has historic buildings, and because it has historic buildings it's notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)- @Voorts I'm really struggling to see your argument with this, a street becomes notable because of the buildings and features on the street, or events taking place on the street, there's not one piece of asphalt/concrete/cobblestone on the planet that is notable solely for existing. As @KJP1 noted above, The street is in a conservation area, which gives it both status and protection, and it won an award. Overall, I think there's enough 13 Listed buildings on one street, the notable market, I really cannot see your argument for this not being notable.. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Notability is not inherited: having listed buildings and being in a conservation area does not make a street notable. By that logic, almost every street in every city would be notable because there's always something historic on most streets and many streets are in some type of designated arwa. Additionally, the inner city revitalization project won an award, not the street itself. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- This discussion is becoming rather philosophical. For me, a street covers the buildings that stand on it, it defines the area in which they stand. It can't just be the strip of tarmac down the middle. Queen Anne's Gate, which I'd agree is more notable than this, is important because it has a stack of Grade I listed buildings, in which notable people lived, worked, socialised, died. I don't think anyone would argue to AfD that, and the same argument holds true here. KJP1 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think you've summed it up perfectly there. @KJP1 Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
a street becomes notable because of the buildings and features on the street, or events taking place on the street, there's not one piece of asphalt/concrete/cobblestone on the planet that is notable solely for existing
That is incorrect. Notability is not defined by whether a subject (here, a street) is related to another notable subject (that is what I meant bynotability is not inherited
) A subject is notable for the purposes of Wikipedia if it meets the WP:GNG. The GNG defines a subject as notable if it has receiced significant coverage in relaivle sources.- Here, Low Pavement, Chesterfield, is not notable just because there may be notable buildings on the street (and as I've noted before, under the subject specific notability guideline for buildings, even being listed isn't enough: you still need to show signifcant coverage).
- To use your example, Queen Anne's Gate is notable because a lot of people have written about it as a subject. If people have written significant coverage of Low Pavement, Chesterfield, then it would be notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think you've summed it up perfectly there. @KJP1 Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- This discussion is becoming rather philosophical. For me, a street covers the buildings that stand on it, it defines the area in which they stand. It can't just be the strip of tarmac down the middle. Queen Anne's Gate, which I'd agree is more notable than this, is important because it has a stack of Grade I listed buildings, in which notable people lived, worked, socialised, died. I don't think anyone would argue to AfD that, and the same argument holds true here. KJP1 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Significant increase in body and references since deletion request. Enough refs in Historic England to warrant a stub for the street. Other citations are added bonus. -Bogger (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment
This is not a full source assessment. I've already explained why the fact that a potentially notable shopping mall exists on the street and the fact that royals visited the shopping mall to open it doesn't establish notability. Likewise, a bomb threat at a local pub doesn't establish that the street that the pub is on is notable. Moreover, there is no SNG that states that having several listed buildings on a street establishes notability. If editors would like there to be one, they should suggest that, but we can't invent SNGs to fit our preferences during AfD discussions. To summarize the below, there are two sources, both by the same author, that discuss one aspect of the Low Pavement (its preservation), albeit in the broader context of revitalization of the area. I would not oppose merging some of the information here to Chesterfield, Derbyshire, or in creating an article for The Pavements, since that seems to be notable. I think it's a stretch to say that the street on its own is notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Derbyshire Times | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
Bagshaw | ![]() |
? | ![]() |
✘ No |
White | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
Bradley | ![]() |
![]() |
~ Discusses preservation of Low Pavement as part of a broader revitalisation plan. | ~ Partial |
Sadler | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
Picture the Past | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
Chesterfield Online | ![]() |
? | ![]() |
✘ No |
Smith and Sykes | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
Marsh | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
Appraisal | ? Appears to be an appraisal for the Town Council, but the authorship is unclear. | ? There is no indication of fact-checking. | ![]() |
? Unknown |
European Heritage Awards | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
Chesterfield Market | By the Chesterfield Borough Council. | ? Unknown whether this is fact-checked. | ![]() |
✘ No |
Revitalising Chesterfield Market | ![]() |
? | ![]() |
✘ No |
Derbyshire Victoria County History Trust | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
Bradley 2 | ![]() |
![]() |
~ Discusses preservation of Low Pavement as part of a broader revitalisation plan. | ~ Partial |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. |
Comment on source analysis. The two sources "Bradley" and "Bradley2" are by the same author and so should be consolidated. When merged I would adjudge the overall coverage from the two combined to amount to significant coverage. Rupples (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Point 2: It's highly likely the redevelopment of Low Pavement received ongoing coverage in The Derbyshire Times in the early 1980s. Unfortunately, the issues of the newspaper covering this period have not been scanned in to the British Newspaper Archive, though they would be available locally on microfilm at the main Chesterfield library.[5] Rupples (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The source analysis above while pointing to non-notability isn't the whole story. The street contains numerous listed buildings. We could presumably have a page for each one under WP:NBUILD. Surely better to have the street as a 'wrapper' for the notable buildings; perhaps there isn't enough to say about each one (I haven't checked whether there is or is not). So, strict interpretation of the notability guideline in the way argued by the nominator in this case doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. The article does require improvement though. Recommend removing the bomb threat piece; it is an insignificant and trivial moment in the street's history and detracts from the article's merit. Rupples (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Erm. Just discovered the Low Pavement listed buildings are included within Listed buildings in Chesterfield, Derbyshire, which kind of negates my main reason for keeping this. Not sure now, so striking above !vote. Rupples (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - one of the most notable streets in the town, and on balance I think there is enough for an article. I've added some more history, and if anyone has access to Bestall's History of Chesterfield books, I suspect there will be more in there. Warofdreams talk 00:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to a new Chesterfield Town Centre article. There are also several listed buildings on Market Place and New Square on the opposite side of the square from this steet, as well as other nearby streets. With such an enormous number of listed buildings, there's also an enormous number of streets with multiple listed buildings, but that does not mean the street itself is necessarily notable. The town centre is a designated conservation area that includes other listed buildings and would provide better context as a notable area. Some of this article already duplicates Chesterfield,_Derbyshire#The_Pavements and Chesterfield,_Derbyshire#Shopping,_entertainment_and_leisure. Also, all these listed buildings are now just facades whose interiors are now part of The Pavements Shopping Centre. Maybe that should have an article instead. Reywas92Talk 04:09, 8 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 Tadao Ando. I see a consensus to Merge this article. After the Merge is completed, you can take the Redirect to RFD to discuss its deletion and point to this AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
27712 Pacific Coast Highway
- 27712 Pacific Coast Highway (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)
Notability is WP:BLP1E only. Other coverage is WP:ROUTINE. TarnishedPathtalk 01:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. TarnishedPathtalk 01:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This real estate is sitting on the WP:COAT of its owners. On its own, despite its architect, the subject fails WP:GNG because it has nothing notable to it other than its current owners. Its title itself is a serious BLP privacy concern (not rectifiable by normal editing without oversight). It would even be a BLP problem for subsequent non-notable owners (and I mean: *totally private* people with their home address as a Wikipedia title). JFHJr (㊟) 02:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- PS. And WP:NOTNEWS. Point back to the fact that this subject has zero sustained coverage over its existence. JFHJr (㊟) 02:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, looks like a solid GNG pass, not really sure what these other two are talking about (for example none of the coverage seems to fall under WP:ROUTINE and BLP1E is part of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons... and the subject here is one of the most expensive houses in the world not a person). Will expand from coverage not currently in article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back, it seems to me that all the coverage that is not WP:ROUTINE concerns the sale of the property to Beyoncé and Jay-Z for $200 million, making this WP:BLP1E. An article doesn't have to be a WP:BLP itself to have BLP content in it. TarnishedPathtalk 02:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- The topic of this article is not the sale (an event), this article is about the house. BLP1E does not apply to objects. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- The sale (an event) is the only notability the article has. Remove the sale and there would be no article. This article is about two BLP's house. Therefore BLP1E applies. TarnishedPathtalk 02:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Excuse me if I don't accept that extremely flimsy logic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- That... isn't what BLP1E is for. It simply doesn't apply to articles that aren't themselves BLPs. (Agree that this probably shouldn't have an article but BLP1E is not the reason why). Elli (talk | contribs) 03:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is incorrect to say BLP1E isn't applicable to a building. Everything here, including talk pages, is subject to WP:BLP and its collateral policies, especially when it's under a notability question. I'll also note the event is not just the purchase, but amounts to mere ownership, and "events" may last a long time. That's the point of seeking enduring notability in the real estate itself and not the owner, or even the sale, in terms of a standalone article. JFHJr (㊟) 01:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLP applies everywhere, but the effect of WP:BLP1E is only on biographical articles of low profile individuals. The text of that section explicitly cautions so:
WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals.
I note that we do, however, reach essentially the same outcome around enduring notability; I via WP:N. Rotary Engine talk 01:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLP applies everywhere, but the effect of WP:BLP1E is only on biographical articles of low profile individuals. The text of that section explicitly cautions so:
- The sale (an event) is the only notability the article has. Remove the sale and there would be no article. This article is about two BLP's house. Therefore BLP1E applies. TarnishedPathtalk 02:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- The topic of this article is not the sale (an event), this article is about the house. BLP1E does not apply to objects. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back, it seems to me that all the coverage that is not WP:ROUTINE concerns the sale of the property to Beyoncé and Jay-Z for $200 million, making this WP:BLP1E. An article doesn't have to be a WP:BLP itself to have BLP content in it. TarnishedPathtalk 02:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep but move to ‘Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s California house’ The house is notable- is has a notable architect and broke the record for its sale price, but is currently titled with the buildings address. WP:BLPPRIVACY says “articles should not include postal addresses” and “If you see personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it”. In fact, I’ll move the page right now, so this might disrupt this AfD listing.TheSpacebook (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- You'd need WP:OVERSIGHT with a page move, right? Can't have the address in the title history. May as well WP:BLOWITUP *if* the subject (the real estate) is independently notable. Meh? JFHJr (㊟) 02:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- PS. Notable persons's belonging: WP:INHERIT takes a lot. I don't think this wins. But maybe it might. We shall see. Thanks as always, and cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- And I struck your move proposal since you went ahead and did that during AfD. Usually, it's best to be patient enough for an outcome. JFHJr (㊟) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- And now I've un-struck your move comment, since someone stepped in and undid your mid-discussion page move. Let's be patient and wait for this to reach a consensus. If it helps not to watch, don't watch! JFHJr (㊟) 22:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 1. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 02:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge without redirect of the original title to Beyoncé or Jay-Z, whichever can be determined to have a more encyclopedic connection with the property. The house is not notable because $200 million was paid for it; it is noteworthy that these people bought a house for that much, but this would have been true no matter which house they paid that amount for. It is one of countless high-priced houses owned by wealthy entertainers, designed by an architect who designs high-end houses. Most of these sales get some kind of coverage in the trade papers, and some make it into more general papers due to interest in the celebrity, not the house. None of these things make it independently notable. BD2412 T 03:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- What happens to this (moved) name space, and the previous name space with the address? Shall we delete them both? Due to the page move during AfD discussion, there are now two unneeded name spaces, IMO. JFHJr (㊟) 03:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- We have the tools to remove privacy-invading content from article/redirect histories. BD2412 T 12:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- What happens to this (moved) name space, and the previous name space with the address? Shall we delete them both? Due to the page move during AfD discussion, there are now two unneeded name spaces, IMO. JFHJr (㊟) 03:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with redirect from original title only to Tadao Ando. The new title is pure gossip journalism and inadmissable under BLP as a privacy violation. The house is marginally notable on grounds of the high price (additional coverage that wasn't there when I looked at the article and went searching: Architectural Digest, SFGate); the high price is in part due to the architect, and there is some coverage of the original owners' use of it to display their art collection, e.g. this spat over a large outside sculpture, Malibu Times. It can be a referenced line in the list of his works, to which "27712 Pacific Coast Highway" is a reasonable redirect, and there is no reason under BLP to expunge the history providing the one line does not name the current owners. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Failing a delete, I think this is the best target page for a redirect proposal. Thanks, Yngvadottir! JFHJr (㊟) 03:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just to let you know, that this article recently became active as a result of a discussion on the BLP policy talk page, it may interest you: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Publication of Living Individuals Home Addresses TheSpacebook (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, JFHJr. I found it listed at Tadao Ando#Projects, unlinked it, ref'd it, named it for the clients and moved it to a different year based on one of those sources. (Most press coverage of the sale appears to go back to a TMZ report and judging by widespread omission, that didn't give the completion year. I haven't hunted for it.) I note that there's another Malibu house with a star purchaser already listed, also unlinked and listed by the commissioning owner. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Tadao Ando as one of his noteworthy accomplishments. Most of the participants in this debate have made valid points, but I find WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT to be the most relevant policies here. The recent sale indeed made the news, though that "news" doesn't get too far beyond standard celebrity gossip. It could be argued that the record price is an achievement for the architect rather than the buyers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you mean the seller not the architect? The property was primarily valued at the astronomical sum because of its location not its architect, note that the previous most expensive property sold in California was the one *next door* which was not an Ando. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- So what? Merge anyway because the house under discussion is not notable for all the reasons stated by everyone. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Noting that WP:ONEEVENT & WP:BLP1E apply to people, not properties. Rotary Engine talk 04:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Make sure you know who you're responding to and when. I did not cite WP:BLP1E myself. When I cited WP:ONEEVENT yesterday, the article was called "Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s California house" and it was full of text about those two celebrities, so both of those policies are/were relevant anyway. Meanwhile, moving the article's title in the middle of a deletion discussion sure doesn't help much. You guys figure it out. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand, how would either the title or the content make WP:ONEEVENT relevant? ONEEVENT is about "People notable for only one event" and neither of the celebrities mentioned fall into that category. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see why the principal undergirding WP:ONEEVENT would not apply to a building that was only covered in the media in connection with a single event. An example would be Francklyn Cottage (where President James A. Garfield died, having been taken there in hopes of recovery from a gunshot would). BD2412 T 23:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- If, in independent, reliable sources, there is sufficient depth of documentation of Francklyn Cottage to satisfy WP:GNG, why should an article not be written on it? Similar to Garfield Tea House; presumably also only noted because of its link to Garfield's death. Rotary Engine talk 01:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see why the principal undergirding WP:ONEEVENT would not apply to a building that was only covered in the media in connection with a single event. An example would be Francklyn Cottage (where President James A. Garfield died, having been taken there in hopes of recovery from a gunshot would). BD2412 T 23:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand, how would either the title or the content make WP:ONEEVENT relevant? ONEEVENT is about "People notable for only one event" and neither of the celebrities mentioned fall into that category. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Make sure you know who you're responding to and when. I did not cite WP:BLP1E myself. When I cited WP:ONEEVENT yesterday, the article was called "Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s California house" and it was full of text about those two celebrities, so both of those policies are/were relevant anyway. Meanwhile, moving the article's title in the middle of a deletion discussion sure doesn't help much. You guys figure it out. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you mean the seller not the architect? The property was primarily valued at the astronomical sum because of its location not its architect, note that the previous most expensive property sold in California was the one *next door* which was not an Ando. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with redirect from original title only to Tadao Ando; per Yngvadottir et al. Mention the record setting purchase at Beyoncé &/or Jay-Z; likely without the address. At best, barely borderline notable as a separate topic - there is an absence of independent, reliable, secondary sourcing providing in-depth documentation of the subject. Certainly, however, noteworthy in the articles mentioned. Rotary Engine talk 10:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- For clarity, I am also comfortable with a merge without redirect. I am not comfortable with a redirect from "Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s California house". Rotary Engine talk 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Add: Fails WP:NBUILD which requires
significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability
. Rotary Engine talk 07:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Administrator note Per the various concerns expressed here I have restored the page to its original title. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I welcome this, had I have known the address couldn’t be redacted through oversight, I wouldn’t have moved it. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. JFHJr (㊟) 00:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete an ATD is fine, but the house's notability is essentially inherited and fails GNG on its own. SportingFlyer T·C 16:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. It's only noteworthy at most, with the WP:WEIGHT of a short mention in the owner/s article/s and/or the architect's article. I'm not seeing a compelling reason for a redirect but realize others here want that. JFHJr (㊟) 22:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Many thanks to Primefac for reverting the article move and deleting the ill-advised title. I see the text has at some point been revised so that the intro is all about the current owners. Since I strongly disagree that their names are the basis for its notability and I'm advocating merge without history deletion, if nobody else does, I'm going to rewrite the article, returning it to its original focus on the record sale price and the architecture. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Tadao Ando per those above. The current title (the home's street address) is more a BLP violation than titling it by its current occupants. Do any of the sources actually give the exact address? It looks like they're just saying "a home on the Pacific Coast Highway". If the structure doesn't have its own name then titling it by its notable residents seems entirely reasonable, and preferable to giving the exact location of a private residence as a title. But I agree that the recent coverage is not about the home but about who purchased it, and while we do usually keep information about record-setting things, I don't think "most expensive real estate" is really a valid record in this economy, and there's very little written about this from an architectural perspective. It amounts to celebrity gossip. On the other hand we have two articles about Taylor Swift's houses, so maybe it's valid, but it should be at a different title. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just a thought, but if we were looking for a BLP-free title, something like 2014 Tadao Ando Pacific Coast Highway house would do it. BD2412 T 12:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm reading a potential consensus for a Merge to Tadao Ando, so another rename might not be necessary if said merge is carried out in a timely manner after close. TarnishedPathtalk 13:30, 4 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. ✗plicit 00:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
List of tallest buildings in the European Union
- List of tallest buildings in the European Union (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)
WP:LISTN. Redundant list. It's basically the same list as List of tallest buildings in Europe minus Russia and Turkey. Randam (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Randam (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, sources I could find talked about the entirety of Europe and not just the European Union.Esolo5002 (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete too similar to List of tallest buildings in Europe. TheTankman (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST as this grouping is not discussed in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: We already have List of tallest buildings in Europe. I don't think the sourcing is there to justify a list of tallest buildings in the EU separately from Europe in general. HenryMP02 (talk) 22:37, 6 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. Owen× ☎ 00:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Congress Hotel (Portland, Oregon)
- Congress Hotel (Portland, Oregon) (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)
Hotel does not appear to meet notability guidelines. OiYoiYoink (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Oregon. OiYoiYoink (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Why would you think this? I quickly and easily found several sources that suggest the building is notable. The architect is notable and the article could be expanded with details about the building's design and construction, ownership and other tenants, and demolition. Not to mention, some of the building's arches were converted into a gazebo structure that's included on the city's Historic Resource Inventory. This is an obvious keep. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, I am glad you found some sources and enhanced the article. OiYoiYoink (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- @OiYoiYoink Thanks! Do you still believe the topic is not notable? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe write more than a single sentence with a single source when creating articles and you wouldn't have to sigh on your talk page so much. These nominations aren't so unnecessary if they result in the expansion that should have happened in the first place. Reywas92Talk 20:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- You've said this to me ad nauseam. Call me old fashioned, but I think WP:BEFORE should be followed instead of just jumping to AfD at every opportunity. Also, I would appreciate if you would take my user talk page off your watchlist because you clearly follow me around and target my work, even when I have asked you to leave me alone many times. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, I am glad you found some sources and enhanced the article. OiYoiYoink (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
DeleteKeep The sources currently in the article don't show any notability whatsoever (listicles typically don't count), it's usually easy to track that information down for notable buildings. And we definitely have lots of crufty Portland business articles on this site that we keep because of local consensus. There's a photo in the book Vanishing Portland but the caption isn't really significant coverage. I may have missed historical articles though - if I have, please ping me. SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)- @SportingFlyer You have! Check out this book. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- My concern with that book is that it's not necessarily discriminate - it talks about a number of different hotels in Portland. I've written articles on several demolished hotels across the world now, and I always look at what newspapers of the time have said about the hotel in order to demonstrate notability. The only one we have at the moment is that it hosted a convention, which does not demonstrate notability. There should be articles about its opening and closing, especially during the period in which it was built, which will require some sort of source search. At the moment, it's sort of pieced together on the back of sugar packets. I'd be happy to change to a keep if better sourcing can be found. SportingFlyer T·C 22:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- @SportingFlyer There are dozens of sources at the Oregonian archives accessible via Multnomah County Library. Thousands if you count solely passing mentions. I'll add some to the entry as I have time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please let me know when you've added a couple, will change to keep if they're sufficiently substantial (such as the opening.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sure thing! I added "Hotel demise - end of an era" already, but I probably won't be able to add more tonight. Other things to do! Thanks for being willing to revisit ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've changed to keep, discovered the Oregonian quoted a contemporaneous article in a discussion on its closure which clearly showed significant coverage like you would see for a notable early 20th century demolished hotel. SportingFlyer T·C 23:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Like Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've changed to keep, discovered the Oregonian quoted a contemporaneous article in a discussion on its closure which clearly showed significant coverage like you would see for a notable early 20th century demolished hotel. SportingFlyer T·C 23:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sure thing! I added "Hotel demise - end of an era" already, but I probably won't be able to add more tonight. Other things to do! Thanks for being willing to revisit ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please let me know when you've added a couple, will change to keep if they're sufficiently substantial (such as the opening.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- @SportingFlyer There are dozens of sources at the Oregonian archives accessible via Multnomah County Library. Thousands if you count solely passing mentions. I'll add some to the entry as I have time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- My concern with that book is that it's not necessarily discriminate - it talks about a number of different hotels in Portland. I've written articles on several demolished hotels across the world now, and I always look at what newspapers of the time have said about the hotel in order to demonstrate notability. The only one we have at the moment is that it hosted a convention, which does not demonstrate notability. There should be articles about its opening and closing, especially during the period in which it was built, which will require some sort of source search. At the moment, it's sort of pieced together on the back of sugar packets. I'd be happy to change to a keep if better sourcing can be found. SportingFlyer T·C 22:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- @SportingFlyer You have! Check out this book. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:10, 29 March 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) 19:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep- the article now meets WP:GNG after the latest round of edits. I retract my prior delete vote. WizardGamer775 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete- this hotel is not notable. See the sources- it's just listings. The sources do not show why it is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. See WP:MILL. WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)- That's not accurate at all.
Thanks for the drive-by delete vote.---Another Believer (Talk) 20:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)- Your disagreement is duly noted. And for you to claim that it is a drive-by delete vote is highly inappropriate. WizardGamer775 (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- How is this just a "listing"? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't show that it's notable. WizardGamer775 (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agree to disagree. I'm going to move on. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't show that it's notable. WizardGamer775 (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- How is this just a "listing"? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Your disagreement is duly noted. And for you to claim that it is a drive-by delete vote is highly inappropriate. WizardGamer775 (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's not accurate at all.
- Keep per the expansion of the page and sources occurring since the nomination. Now easily meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Sources added seem sufficient to keep the article now. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Is it me or does it seem like a lot of Portland companies and business articles get nominated for AFDs compared to organizations in other major cities in the U.S.? Liz Read! Talk! 08:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Liz: My perception is that Another Believer, who has 200+ featured and good articles and lists to their name, has a strong interest in creating articles about Portland (Oregon)–related content (among other topics), and often creates more articles than they have time and energy to fully develop. Many of those articles are so short and stubby that they attract the attention of people who, for whatever reason, do not perform a full WP:BEFORE search but instead go straight to AFD. Why they do this is not for me to explain. All of that said, some of Another Believer's article topics have failed my cursory WP:BEFORE searches, which leads me to think that there are probably some topics of questionable notability among this prolific editor's thousands of contributions, expansions, and creations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- There's also the WP:AUD prong of WP:NCORP, my sense is Portland has more local businesses with articles than probably should exist on here with sourcing only local to Portland. But this is a long closed business, and large early 20th-century hotels were often notable... SportingFlyer T·C 15:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Liz: My perception is that Another Believer, who has 200+ featured and good articles and lists to their name, has a strong interest in creating articles about Portland (Oregon)–related content (among other topics), and often creates more articles than they have time and energy to fully develop. Many of those articles are so short and stubby that they attract the attention of people who, for whatever reason, do not perform a full WP:BEFORE search but instead go straight to AFD. Why they do this is not for me to explain. All of that said, some of Another Believer's article topics have failed my cursory WP:BEFORE searches, which leads me to think that there are probably some topics of questionable notability among this prolific editor's thousands of contributions, expansions, and creations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep thanks to the excellent expansion by Another Believer, WP:HEY. Toughpigs (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep the new expansion has made it into an article worth keeping, it passes WP:GNG along with the newly added sources. TheTankman (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Now it's been shown through sources that the topic is notable and passes the GNG. The nomination was made when the article consisted of a couple of sentences and a single source.[6] WP:BEFORE suggests a fairly basic Google search is sufficient. The search results generated will not be identical for everyone as the searcher's location and other factors are taken into account in the results presented, so it shouldn't be assumed that a proper BEFORE was not carried out. Rupples (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per SportingFlyer, Rupples and others. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:16, 4 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.
- 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Ghayebi Dighi Mosque
- Ghayebi Dighi Mosque (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)
(Not to be confused with the extant Gayebi Mosque in Balaganj Upazila).
All the information about Ghayebi/Gayebi/Gayibi Dighi (a pond) in the two cited sources is: "Simultaneously a good number of sites were explored. These include ..., Gayebi Dighi Mound, ... [in a list of more than a dozen sites]" and "Gayibi Dighi at Bara Thakuri (a stone inscription of 400 years old, now preserved in the Bangladesh national museum, has been discovered from this dighi)". Neither of the sources mention a mosque.
The author of the article asserted, "There are enough sources on the web if searched in Bengali". That is contradicted by my experience. The only other reliable source I could find in any language is another brief mention of the inscription.[7] With zero reliable sources about the mosque (if there ever was one), the topic fails WP:GNG. It is unsuitable for merging or redirection, let alone for a stand alone article. Worldbruce (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - there may be some sources available in Bengali language. It says an ancient mosque and has a page on the Bengali language Wikipedia. Bhivuti45 (talk) 10:57, 30 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) 22:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion which is typically what would happen here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 8 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)