Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture

Shortcut

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:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Architecture|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Architecture, buildings, construction, city planning and public spaces. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Architecture

Gurudwara Bibi Veero Ji

Gurudwara Bibi Veero Ji (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:NBUILD. No coverage in secondary sources. Junbeesh (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note that page creator deleted all maintenance tags (once again) and moved it to Draft:Gurudwara Bibi Veero Ji, probably hoping the redirect would be deleted before we noticed. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I've moved back the draft to mainspace since there is an ongoing deletion discussion for this article. Galaxybeing (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 Moot.‎. Deletion is not an outcome that is going to emerge from this discussion, therefore no relist is needed. A merge and retitle/target can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 02:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swinging Bridge

Swinging Bridge (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 seem notable enough, the only sources I could find are either tourist guides or official park websites. The article is also written like an advertisement. Protobowladdictuwu (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Yosemite Valley Bridges. I don't see why it should be disqualifying that most of the available sources are travel guides – those can be reliable sources. However, the coverage is thin enough that I don't see this bridge being notable enough for its own article. I do have to say that I don't think much of the article's current contents, except for the title and image, are WP:DUE, but it'll be easy enough to clean up after a merge. Tserton (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Meralco Theater

Meralco Theater (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, no coverage on the theater itself save for the 40th anniversary Philippine Star article. Other citations are an OpEd, a tag page for Rappler only filled with press release articles of events happening. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natività della Vergine, Thiene

Natività della Vergine, Thiene (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 sources to establish notability per: WP:N. See talk page for more info. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArcGIS Urban

ArcGIS Urban (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)

Cannot find WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:COMPANY, none such provided in the article and my googling does not turn up any seefooddiet (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ArcGIS since Urban is a product within Esri's ArcGIS line. Not sure if WP:COMPANY applies here since it's a product and not a company, but agree that this should be deleted due to poor sourcing. Artwhitemaster (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all! I'm the user who created the page, and I'm still relatively new at making pages (mostly did small edits until now). Full disclosure: I work as a software engineer on this product (ArcGIS Urban), and I wasn't exactly familiar with the Wikipedia notability test - a learning experience for me! Since I saw the "nominated this article for deletion" banner, I haven't made more edits, but maybe it would help if I added more references and expanded the article? In the end I will defer to the experts on whether the page needs to be kept/merged/etc. CJJ2501 (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the reply! Please also keep in mind WP:COI; on Wikipedia working on topics you have a paid relationship to comes with significant caveats.
    Regardless of COI, you could try to identify more reliable sources (namely third party mainstream news coverage) but I've done some looking and am a bit skeptical it would pass notability. seefooddiet (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 00:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sepulveda Rose

Sepulveda Rose (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)

A fairly WP:ROTM mid-century Los Angeles apartment building. The only WP:GNG-qualifying source is the LA Conservancy page on the complex. The LA Historic Resources Inventory (a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE) indicates that the building may be eligible for a historic designation but it's not designated now. I don't see a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: almost, but not quite notable. Some historical interest noted, but nothing we can use to build an article. If it gets some sort of listing, either local or in the NRHP, we can look at revisiting the article. Delete for now Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some insight as the author - I saw it on the Conservancies' website and am definitely more of an inclusionist. It has a few mentions on various city and are historical society pages, and the architect had his own article which pushed me over the edge. I thought it was on the line but decided to write it and hash it out later if people disagreed. Blervis (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: See my reasoning above. I've seen buildings that feel less notable to me, I guess it just depends how much stock you put in the LA Conservancies opinion of what constitutes a historic building. Blervis (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NCREATIVE works generally only one direction; being the creator of a notable/significant work can qualify for notability, but it's not really possible for a work to have WP:INHERITED notability from its creator. (The exception is articulated under WP:NBOOK for works by creators of such fame that every work they produce is considered notable (say, Shakespeare), but this architect is not at that level and buildings aren't covered by NBOOK.) So until we have more independent SIGCOV besides the LA Conservancy, there's not a GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to imply it was notable solely because of the article, just that a building on a recognized historic listing by an architect of note is more notable than one that isn't. As I said above, I agree that this is on the line, I feel that the conservancy and city sources elevate it to notability. With respect to the WP:ROTM comment, it clearly isn't since the Conservancy has designated it as of particular interest. Whether you think that particular organization is too free with designations is another question.
    If people feel that both city and Conservancy recognition doesn't amount to notability then I won't fight it - that's all there is at this time. I'm of the opinion that those two are enough to constitute notability - not every building is going to have books dedicated to it. It seems consensus is against me on this one. If it does get recognized by the city or other entity someday we can revisit this. Blervis (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm very pro NRHP buildings having a listing here, but the sourcing just doesn't seem to be there. I've been creating articles on and off on this subject, and it's a high bar to meet for inclusion, but it is what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion. BD2412 T 01:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Myth by Tom Otterness

Creation Myth by Tom Otterness (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 for the life of me can't find any reliable sources. the place and sculpture exists, but I don't think that it's notable. The only source I can find is 

https://brooklynrail.org/2014/12/artseen/tom-otterness-creation-myth/

but I don't think this is particularly reliable. Everything else I could find online was not independent, or was covering a replacement of one of the sculptures with a bronze copy. I think this is a WP:TNT, WP:GNG, and is full of WP:PROMO in current form. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bearian, please have a read of the museum link. It's a full presentation with multiple photographs and its own references. Museum pages are not primary references, they are simply recognition that a particular artwork (or in this case, group of works) both exists and is prominent enough to be brought into and remain in the collection of their prominent museum. Museums don't just take in any work, they closely and expertly judge notability for inclusion, which is why a single museum source is usually enough to provide notability to an artwork. In this case the artwork is also fully in public space, to be visited at any hour of the day or night, and was granted this exposure by the museum which, of course, puts its own reputation on the line when making such decisions. Thanks for asking for further discussion, an exchange of points-of-view. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Significant coverage" generally means three or more reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are hundreds of thousands of museums that have judged millions of artworks to be in their collections. Significance to display at a university gallery – or even the Met, with 1.5 million works and perhaps as many webpages about expertly judged objects – is not the same as notability on Wikipedia or the need for a standalone page here. No, a single source is not acceptable, and there is no basis for this claim in WP:N. Reywas92Talk 22:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete, absolutely over done, over the top article about a run-of-the-mill sculpture in a park. I laughed out loud at the line about "Despite being a world famous artist." If it is necessary to have 9 of the 16 sources be the person who made the sculpture, then that is not a "world famous artist" and this is not a notable sculpture. There is clearly not enough coverage in independent sources to support a separate article about this sculpture. This sculpture can be covered in probably two sentences in the article on the artist. Asparagusstar (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed "world famous artist", good catch. Aside from that, it's not one sculpture, or a "sculpture in a park", as you imply throughout your comment. It's a series of sculptures. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed you "upgraded" your delete to 'Strong delete', even after I fixed your main objection. Pointing out again, the sculptures are not just a "sculpture' in a park but a series of sculptures placed in the outside public space of the major art museum in Rochester, New York. Aside from the museum cites the sources seem to easily meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is at least this editor's 5th comment here. Their incorrect claims have already been addressed by multiple editors. Their multiple attention-seeking comments are adding nothing to this conversation other than filibustering and wasting other editors' volunteer time. Asparagusstar (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing so it’s not just from one person.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to artist's article. The fact that the only "analysis" source is the one Brooklyn Rail article is not enough to justify a standalone article. It becomes a WP:COATRACK for primary source expansion when dedicated articles should be sourced to reliable, secondary sources. In this case, they do not appear to exist. The Marlborough Gallery exhibition essay is not independent of the subject. The other sources in the Magart catalog listing might be relevant to a Centennial Sculpture Park article but even then are more likely to fill out a section on that topic within the museum's article than to substantiate an article about an individual sculpture discussed in passing. Expand in summary style within the parent artist article. Also note that this article should be retitled by the artwork titles guideline and that the multiple images uploaded to Commons need to be deleted, lacking a free license to display the copyrighted sculpture with no freedom of panorama. czar 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Art isn't really my area, but I did find some additional sources that I thought might be useful. These three articles (one admittedly in a college paper) talk about plans for the sculpture and about the controversy surrounding it in a fair bit of detail: [9] [10] [11] (edit: apologies, missed that one of these was already in the article). These two articles from 2018 are about ongoing maintenance of the sculpture, suggesting that it continues to attract at least some level of attention: [12] [13]. And I'm not sure whether this can be considered towards notability, but it's discussed at some length in this PhD dissertation (suggesting at least a minor level of academic interest in the sculpture?). It's definitely not the world's most prominent artwork, but a few pieces of artistic analysis plus some local news coverage as a landmark is enough to make me think it's marginally notable. MCE89 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dissertations and student papers are unreliable and not considered notable coverage for notability discussions. The Rochester City Magazine articles make the case for an article about the sculpture park, which can contain discussion of the sculpture, but where's the significant coverage to write about the sculpture itself without delving into primary sources like the article has? The other local news coverage is brief and doesn't contribute to this either. czar 21:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The museum source is not a primary source. And no, this is not bludgeoning, just a clarification about museum pages reporting about their holdings. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to re-read that essay on bludgeoning. I don't often cite essays at people, as it's rude and counterproductive, but you should really just stop responding to this AfD. You've responded 6 times, and people know your opinion, and we know you are going to disagree with those arguing delete. You really can just drop the stick. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG with the following significant coverage in reliable sources.
  • "TOM OTTERNESS Creation Myth". The Brooklyn Rail. 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2025-01-23.. Critical review and analysis in The Brooklyn Rail, a reliable source for art criticism.
  • "Gallery's sculpture garden not without controversy". The Buffalo News. 2013-08-04. p. 65. Retrieved 2025-01-23. The most interesting work at the new sculpture garden at Rochester's Memorial Art Gallery, the one that attracts the most attention, that takes up the most space, that visitors are most likely to spend the most time with, that is, in so many ways, delightful, is also the most controversial, the one with the darkest past. It's called Creation Myth and is the work of Tom Otterness, one of the country's best-known sculptors...
  • Jacobson, Sebby Wilson. "Inside Out: Memorial Art Gallery celebrates 100 years with a new sculpture park". American Craft. 73 (4): 90–93. Given a prime site at the park's busy corner, Otterness designed Creation Myth to link the gallery with its neighboring museums and artists' studios -and to reflect the region's history as the cradle of the U.S. women's rights movement. Reversing the roles of the traditional Pygmalion tale, the Brooklyn artist depicts female sculptors carving male sculptures amid a quarry-like setting that doubles as an amphitheater. Several massive, cartoonlike figures, composed of simple sphere, cube, cone, and cylinder forms, are rendered in Indiana limestone taken from the same quarry that supplied materials for the gallery's original building. Scattered throughout the site are about a dozen small bronze figures that depict the creative process, as well as same-sex couples kissing.
  • Steiner, Wendy (2015-08-01). "Moved by Metal On Beauty as Interaction". Metalsmith. 33 (4). Tom Otterness builds whole playgrounds out of the debris of the old Palace of Art, humanizing the cold geometric forms of modernism into lovable cones, cubes, and spheres. In the "Creation Myth" series, he deploys these figures to overturn the misogyny of the Pygmalion myth. In this archetypal account of male creativity, the sculptor Pygmalion refuses to use any model for his image of beauty, because he believes that all women are prostitutes. He fabricates an ideal female figure out of his own imagination, and predictably, falls in love with his self-projection. With the help of the gods, he kisses the statue to life and then marries her. This is Interactive Beauty with a vengeance, I suppose, except that the women in the story have no agency. Pygmalion is not only the artist, but the model for his artwork, its viewer, and its owner. Otterness amends this closed circuit with a female artist who sculpts a male statue, and when the two kiss, they kiss as equals.
Jfire (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Proposed deletions


Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

Other pages

Quelle: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Architecture