This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Arts. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Arts|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Arts. For MfD, the process is the same as AfD. For the other XfD's you can use {{transclude xfd}} to add them here. 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.
watch |
Arts
Macintyre Art Advisory
- Macintyre Art Advisory (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:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY. Nothing for the past several years has been happening in this article. I also tried to look for a source but was unable to. GoodHue291 (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Slovenian writer
- Slovenian writer (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)
It is obvious writers from one specific country may write in any language other than their national one. This article has no purpose of existing nor potential for expansion. Super Ψ Dro 21:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Literature, and Slovenia. Super Ψ Dro 21:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete We have categories for such things, no need for a microstubby list with three entries and actually no entry primarily connected with the topic itself. A09|(talk) 07:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, pointless WP:DICDEF. Geschichte (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Peter Riva
- Peter Riva (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)
This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Marked for COI and primary sourcing issues over 10 years ago, this article's sourcing still consists of 1) coverage about other topics that merely mention the subject, and 2) primary sources. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Arts, Management, Switzerland, California, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Spitalfields Market
- Spitalfields Market (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)
This page is a duplicate of Old Spitalfields Market which has existed since 2004. The page does not relate to New Spitalfields Market which has its own page. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Food and drink, and Shopping malls. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Restore dab for which its useful. Star Mississippi 12:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm leaning to restoring the dab page. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoryPhillips(DJ)
Arts Templates for deletion
Arts Proposed deletions
Visual arts
Hell, etc. (exhibition)
- Hell, etc. (exhibition) (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The article presently only links to fan webpages, with the exception of one brief article in Greek. toweli (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Events, and Greece. toweli (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge : to the art section of his main article [1], I can't find coverage outside of the links given, already in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Pilgrimage (demoparty)
- Pilgrimage (demoparty) (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The only thing I found was this webpage (not article) on The Salt Lake Tribune's website. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Visual arts, Events, Computing, United States of America, and Utah. toweli (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
SUPERM
- SUPERM (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 concerns; no reliable sources; possible original research BoraVoro (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, Politics, Europe, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reasons to Be Cheerful (book)
- Reasons to Be Cheerful (book) (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)
Mainly Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV , I had trouble finding sources for this article. GoodHue291 (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I can only find reviews of a book with the same title by Nina Stibbe, unrelated to this book. I don't see notability for this book. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Visual arts, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Covered in the New York Times, The Independent (via ProQuest), Eye Magazine and Design Oberserver. Not sure about the reliability of the last one, but the author seems qualified enough. Sufficient coverage to meet WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Could be excellent sources, but it's still hasn't been added onto the article. GoodHue291 (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- @GoodHue291: I've added them to the article, but for future reference, whether they're in the article or not has no impact on notability. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Could be excellent sources, but it's still hasn't been added onto the article. GoodHue291 (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The New York Times source is very strong. The Eye Magazine is also good. Toughpigs (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, per above listing of sources (please do well-detailed and extensive "before" searches if AfD is to be a thing). Randy Kryn (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Dani Cavallaro
- Dani Cavallaro (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 cannot find anything on this author in both print and online sources despite them writing 28 books. I cannot confirm even the most basic of biographical information (age, country, etc), nor even whether this is even a real person. What if this is simply a collection of authors who publish under this name? I cannot find a single newspaper article on this person, or any kind of faculty biography attached to any kind of institution. There is a short overview that lacks any biographical information on one of her publisher websites. I cannot confirm whether this person is an academic or has any kind of academic background.
Doing online searches, you find people spending years asking the exact same questions and not coming up with anything definitive:
https://www.animemangastudies.com/2014/03/19/who-is-dani-cavallaro-part-1/
https://www.animemangastudies.com/2014/03/21/who-is-dani-cavallaro-part-2/
In principle, her works could be used as sources for Wikipedia (not every author is notable enough to have their own page). There are a handful of academic reviews of her books but this is simply not enough. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as article creator. I understand the concerns you're raising in your nomination, but they seem to be primarily concerns about the subject herself, which is a separate discussion from whether the subject merits a Wikipedia article. If your argument is that Cavallaro does not qualify for assessment under the academic notability guideline, note that she also meets criteria 1 and 3 of the creative professionals guideline: her Google Scholar results indicate that her work is widely cited, some of them having hundreds of citations, her work has been the subject of plentiful reviews in addition to the ones already present in the article, and physical copies of her works seem to be widespread, with this book and this book being available in hundreds of libraries. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- She fails literally every single criteria for the academic notability guideline (and rather badly I might add). She's made zero impact in her field, and merely spams out a lot of very low quality books that get trashed in reviews or cited in other low quality scholarship. She does not publish in any peer reviewed journal at all, and does not hold any position in any unviersity or academic setting, and does not go to any conferences (or even fan conventions). In the end, I can't even prove she's a real person and not 3 teenagers in a trench coat. The article will be permanent stub status simply because there's no sources and likely never will be. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not certain whether the academic guideline applies in this case, but that's pretty irrelevant as I've already demonstrated how she passes the guideline for creative professionals. Again, none of the concerns you're raising here are relevant to the question of whether Cavallaro merits an article. A person does not need to have a public image or appear at events in order to be notable. Even if you think Cavallaro might be "
3 teenagers in a trench coat
", that isn't a reason to delete the article. Should William Shakespeare's article be deleted just because the authenticity of his work has been questioned for hundreds of years? Yes, that's a somewhat hyperbolic comparison, but quite to the point — I haven't seen that claim presented anywhere other than a single blog post, and I regard it as a fringe theory. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)- There is actual proof Shakespeare existed beyond people saying he wrote some works at least. What is there to say about somebody with no known personal details or expertise? XeCyranium (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, bringing up the Shakespeare thing was probably unnecessary, but I believe the point stands. None of Wikipedia's notability guidelines require verification of any personal details. In most cases, what's important is that the subject receives significant coverage in reliable sources; authors get slightly more leeway with the consideration of their works and how widely cited they are. Cavallaro meets both of those thresholds. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is actual proof Shakespeare existed beyond people saying he wrote some works at least. What is there to say about somebody with no known personal details or expertise? XeCyranium (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not certain whether the academic guideline applies in this case, but that's pretty irrelevant as I've already demonstrated how she passes the guideline for creative professionals. Again, none of the concerns you're raising here are relevant to the question of whether Cavallaro merits an article. A person does not need to have a public image or appear at events in order to be notable. Even if you think Cavallaro might be "
- She fails literally every single criteria for the academic notability guideline (and rather badly I might add). She's made zero impact in her field, and merely spams out a lot of very low quality books that get trashed in reviews or cited in other low quality scholarship. She does not publish in any peer reviewed journal at all, and does not hold any position in any unviersity or academic setting, and does not go to any conferences (or even fan conventions). In the end, I can't even prove she's a real person and not 3 teenagers in a trench coat. The article will be permanent stub status simply because there's no sources and likely never will be. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Plenty of books/papers written by her, nothing about her. I don't find much of anything outside of books she's written. No coverage, no critical reviews of her works, unsure about scholarly notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)- @Oaktree b: Did you click the links I provided in my comment above? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I did. The site is listed as a RS [2], but we need more than two articles from the same site to establish notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm confused. I'm not referring to the nomination but to my comment, where I showed her work has been widely cited and reviewed. Also, I will note that Anime and Manga Studies is likely not reliable as a whole, being a self-published source; the WikiProject only recommends a single page of references as a starting point for further research. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I did. The site is listed as a RS [2], but we need more than two articles from the same site to establish notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Oaktree b: Did you click the links I provided in my comment above? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Visual arts, Anime and manga, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The Jstor link provided above shows ample reviews of her written works, easily passing AUTHOR notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Commment: Since the author's reliability has come up here, notifying of a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion about this author. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Dani Cavallaro. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Reliability aside, her works have been reviewed enough for notability as an author. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Very Important Party
- Very Important Party (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Events, Computing, and France. toweli (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Saturne Party
- Saturne Party (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Events, Computing, and France. toweli (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Light and Space Contemporary
- Light and Space Contemporary (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)
Could not find reliable sources online, except for some (including sources used in this article) having short mentions on this subject. Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Museums and libraries, and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
May Gilbert
- May Gilbert (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)
Does not meet any of the criteria for WP:ARTIST. Only 1 article links to this. LibStar (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Visual arts, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete The article has no reliable sources and is essentially an orphan with no article linking to it. This evidence suggests the article does not fall on the notability side. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Her work is in the collections of the Museum of New Zealand and the Christchurch Art Gallery. TheSwamphen (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Would pass artist notability for being in the collections of two museums as shown, but there is a lack of any kind of sourcing... I don't see books, Jstor, Gscholar or a Getty ULAN listing. Even a .nz websearch doesn't turn up much of anything. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Actually, I do not see that her work is in the Museum of New Zealand. The link leads to a list of photographs taken of her work by the photographer Frank Simon Hofmann. The link to Christchurch Art Gallery describes her as an important member of the contemporary art collective known as the Rutland Group. The Rutland Group does not have an article, however there is a category Category:People associated with the Rutland Group. I am gonna take a minute to look at this topic.[1][2][3] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64864575 Might work as a redirect. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Rutland Group, September 1946". Auckland War Memorial Museum. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
- ^ "Rutland times revisited - Lifestyle News". NZ Herald. 7 June 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
- ^ "Art sleuths revive Rutland - Lifestyle News". NZ Herald. 7 June 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
Bronwyn Holloway-Smith
- Bronwyn Holloway-Smith (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:ARTIST and WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Visual arts, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Delete due to lack of secondary sourcing. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete because the sources do not establish notability as per WP:ARTIST. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep the article needs some work but the subject is definitely notable. TheSwamphen (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I went through all of the sources, and don't see how this could meet WP:ARTIST at this time. Elspea756 (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Independent sigcov from 2018 in RNZ, Stuff. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per coverage mentioned by Hameltion. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in line with WP:ARTIST bullets #3, #4, and even #2:
- "Ghosts in the form of gifts" is the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (ref1, ref2)
- "Pioneer City" has won significant critical attention by winning the National Contemporary Art Award (ref1, ref2)
- She is known for her 3D-printing techniques, using the medium to reproduce lost items ("Ghosts in the form of gifts")
- CaptainAngus (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Policies and WP's and MOS aside, how can "we" not keep the page of someone who created the title "Ghosts in the form of gifts". Randy Kryn (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Cleanup needed, new refs indicate that greater notability can be established. Right now, it's borderline from what I can ascertain. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep As well as being an artist and author, Holloway-Smith has also been raising awareness of our 20th century public art as co-director of Public Art Heritage Aotearoa New Zealand supported by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. I've edited the article to make this aspect of Holloway-Smith's work more visible. In my view, the work across a number of fields is enough to keep. Arnhemcr (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Visual arts - Proposed deletions
Visual arts - Images for Deletion
Visual arts - Deletion Review
Architecture
JW Marriott Panglao Island Resort & Spa
- JW Marriott Panglao Island Resort & Spa (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)
This under-construction hotel does not meet threshold for WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. All sources are WP:TRADES publications and thus do not contribute to notability. Any attribution of "five-star" status or "80 spacious guest rooms" or "luxurious amenities" is both promotional and premature. I'd recommend redirecting here but since this hotel won't be open for at least three years the redirect won't be of much use to searchers. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Philippines. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per PROMO, this isn't yet notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the references in the article establish notability. The nominator misunderstands the definition of trade publication. A trade publication serves readers in a particular industry. A magazine or newspaper directed towards a general business audience (Canadian Business, The Wall Street Journal, Crain's Chicago Business) does not have the potential conflict of interest that a single-industry publication such as The Inland Printer might have. Moreover, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) does not completely exclude trade magazines as sources. "Feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear." Of the references, Hospitality News Philippines is a trade publication serving the hotel and restaurant sector. Colliers is the research arm of a commercial real estate broker. The rest of the references seem to be general-audience publications, some with a focus on business, and several include a reporter's byline. The seemingly promotional text can probably be justified from the architectural plans and JW Marriott's reputation as a brand. Hotel stars, unlike Michelin stars, are generally self-awarded, so the developer's claim shouldn't be rejected as premature. A hotel's rating can decline over the years as it loses ground to newer and fancier competitors, or can improve after a significant renovation. Remember that the Hotel Pensylvania in Manhattan stopped being a full-service hotel in its final years, and many of the other hotels and former hotels in Wikipedia started out as the finest hotels in their city but were perceived as less attractive once other competitors arrived in the market. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Even if one rejects the TRADES premise, under WP:NBUILDING there is a requirement for "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." The sources cited in the article are churnalism regurgitating AppleOne's press release, with no evidence of in-depth additional reporting. Such "significant in-depth coverage" would be highly unlikely for a single under-construction hotel that does not appear to have any architectural distinction. Under NBUILDING and PROMO, this article is WP:TOOSOON. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - for all of the above, but mostly for the promo. There’s nothing “seemingly” promotional about it. It is promotional, and premature. KJP1 (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete WP:PROMO for a standard Marriott which isn't even open yet. Nate • (chatter) 00:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete for now as WP:TOOSOON per above. --Lenticel (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Ledo Hotel
- Ledo Hotel (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)
Article about a demolished hotel, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. The referencing here is more than 50 per cent reference bombed to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, such as photographs and directory entries and the self-published websites or Twitter feeds of entities named in the article. And even what there is for proper media coverage isn't building a particularly strong case for notability, as it's entirely local coverage either (a) focusing specifically on the site's place in the city's perennially changing arena-block redevelopment project rather than anything that would establish that it was ever actually noteworthy as a hotel, or (b) tangentially verifying other facts that have nothing whatsoever to do with the hotel, like the existence of the McEwen Architecture School and the farmer's market.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this hotel from having to have a stronger notability claim than just having existed, or from having to have more than just "what is to be done to redevelop the land it used to be on?" for coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Sources 9, 16, 19 and 20 are about the structure. Should be ok to keep Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- also covered here [3], it's a well known structure in Sudbury. Or it was, this helps tell the story. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Those sources are about the efforts to redevelop the land that the hotel was formerly on, not about the hotel as a hotel — and that accounts for just 12 per cent of the footnoting here, while 78 per cent of it is non-notability-building junk. The question isn't whether it was well-known locally, a thing which every public building anywhere can always claim; the question is whether it there's a reason why people beyond Sudbury, like in Winnipeg or Calgary or Vancouver or Halifax or Boston, might have heard of it and want or need to read an article about it. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's not the test, as you well know. The test is whether there are enough secondary sources to allow for an article on the building, and there's plenty, and that doesn't even include a historical newspaper archive search typically required for these sorts of buildings. We have plenty of articles on historical buildings in the USA which aren't particularly notable because of how we interpret the national historic register there. A historic hotel in Sudbury with a great deal of local chatter about it and its redevelopment easily gets over the bar. Furthermore, there are 32 sources, and some of them are "junk," like the link to Google Maps - but it's far less than 78 percent. SportingFlyer T·C 04:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Those sources are about the efforts to redevelop the land that the hotel was formerly on, not about the hotel as a hotel — and that accounts for just 12 per cent of the footnoting here, while 78 per cent of it is non-notability-building junk. The question isn't whether it was well-known locally, a thing which every public building anywhere can always claim; the question is whether it there's a reason why people beyond Sudbury, like in Winnipeg or Calgary or Vancouver or Halifax or Boston, might have heard of it and want or need to read an article about it. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep seems to easily pass GNG to me both with sources in the article and in a BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 05:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Samadhi of Bodhendra Saraswathi
- Samadhi of Bodhendra Saraswathi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The tomb lacks wide coverage in RS. Most of the text is covered in Bodhendra Saraswathi, whose tomb the subject is. The article has little information on the architecture of the tomb, but rather concentrates more on Bodhendra and his death Redtigerxyz Talk 15:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, and India. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Bodhendra Saraswathi. Mccapra (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete . One source that is poor and fails verification. Page fails WP:GNG. I would not even consider to Direct the page to Bodhendra Saraswathi as that too is poorly sourced and should be nominated for deletion. RangersRus (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Mountain House Community station
- Mountain House Community station (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)
This proposed commuter train station does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSTATION Sources 1, 4, and 5 have WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of this planned station in the broader context of the Valley Link system; sources 2 and 3 are primary sources. With this station not scheduled to open until 2028 at the earliest, a standalone article is WP:TOOSOON. I propose to redirect this page to Valley Link until there is sufficient SIGCOV in reliable sources to warrant a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Stations, and California. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per nomination. Appears to be too soon for a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. There are already lots of references, and their number and length will grow as designs are finalized and coverage of the project and individual stations continues. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- You obviously didn't read them as none of the independent sources say more than a sentence or two about the station, and you're making a very bold assumption about a station not expected to open until near the end of the decade. Valley Link already exists. But why let facts get in the way of your personal feelings? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Per WP:FUTURE "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." According to the sources, "The Valley Link project has been awarded $25 million by the state.That funding will go toward Valley Link’s first phase — the 26-mile section from the Pleasanton BART station to the proposed Mountain House station. The overall project is expected to cost $3.6 billion." — Maile (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Regardless of how certain the WP:FUTURE is, the station still has to pass the WP:SIGCOV test to be notable, and it doesn't -- it has passing references in sources focused on the whole system. It will someday, but until then, a redirect is appropriate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect. Fails NOT and GNG. The above keeps have entirely missed the part of FUTURE that says
future events should be included only if the event is notable
(bolding mine); there is no IRS SIGCOV of this event, so it emphatically fails that requirement. JoelleJay (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect the station itself currently fails WP:GNG, but is a possible redirect and has the possibility to be restored in the future if it receives secondary coverage. The problem with the keep !votes: the coverage isn't about the station but rather about the proposed network, and there's no certainty the station will be notable in the future. A redirect is fine for now. SportingFlyer T·C 05:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
Other pages
Wikipedia:Wikiproject deletion sorting/visual arts Wikipedia:Wikiproject deletion sorting/architecture
((Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting|arts)) ((Category:wikiproject arts|deletion))