Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

WP:DSARTS

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:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|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.

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 the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Arts

Shinji Suzuki

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

Promotional article written by a coi/upe editor. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth references from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have to agree, that there are not enough independent secondary reliable sources. I really was hoping that that significant coverage would emerge (as a bonsai fan), however that is not the case. I also think that it's interesting there is not an article on them in JP-WP, but perhaps that is for the same reason. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Maybe in a few more years, but not now. Netherzone (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marbella International Film Festival

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

Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Google.es news search for "Festival Internacional de Cine de Marbella" found multiple hits but they are of the press release type from individual actors/films saying look what I won or look our film is playing instead of being coverage of the festival itself. (Note, my Spanish is lacking so there was a large reliance on machine translation.) That or straight press release, eg the 20minutos source added by A .B. [1]. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Events, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found some sources covering this festival that aren't press releases or about specific movies/actors. Sources: [2] [3][4][5] Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 10:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoryPhillips(DJ)

Arts Templates for deletion

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 2#Template:UK underground

Arts Proposed deletions

Visual arts

Scott King (artist)

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

This article doesn't appear to meet the WP:BIO. Specifically I do not believe there is enough widespread coverage by secondary reliable sources. I have tried to do some research, but of the few sources available these are either primary sources or linked to the subject. Sksatsuma (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Visual arts. Sksatsuma (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sources exist - I'm finding coverage online to substantiate sigcov. Not !voting yet, but I'm pretty sure he meets notability for GNG if not also for NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yikes! I can see why this was nominated for deletion in its previous form. I have updated the article to show his work in MoMA and Tate. But it sure needs a little bit more help. Crummy article is used on https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/scott-king-2763 and https://contemporaryartsociety.org/artists/scott-king --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I apologise if I may have been a bit hasty with the deletion discussion! I had a short search for sources and came up short, but it looks like I could've dug a bit deeper. Appreciate the work you've done :) Sksatsuma (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sksatsuma, when searching for this artist (at least from the U.S.) many of the hits that come back were for Corretta Scott King, so it helps to use additional search terms like "graphic designer" or "artist" or "illustrator" or even U.K., England or British. This helps filter out the correct Scott King. If you haven't already read WP:BEFORE, there is also some helpful info there. Netherzone (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone Thank you for the advice - it's appreciated, it was definitely something that could've been done more thoroughly. I have read WP:BEFORE but did not follow it well! Sksatsuma (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The works of this British graphic designer are present in the notable museum permanent collections of the (Tate, and MoMA), therefore meets criteria #4 of WP:NARTIST; while the in-depth significant coverage in these: meets WP:GNG: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Additionally, there is this interview in Andy Warhol's Interview magazine which has quite a bit of editorial content and in-depth discussion (not a trivial interview). Other interviews: [13], [14], [15], and [16]. Interviews are normally thought of as primary sources, but I consider the first one listed here to be in-depth enough (and with enough input from the interviewer to be considered). Exhibitions include the Institute of Contemporary Arts, Barbican and Studio Voltaire in London; Museum of Modern Art and White Columns, in New York; Palais de Tokyo, Paris; State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg; Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago; Portikus, Frankfurt; and Kunstverein Munich. He's notable. Netherzone (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen Project

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

Fails the notability guideline for web content. All of the current sources are either primary sources or unreliable sources like blog posts. A quick search for more sourcing didn't turn up anything. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Computing, and Internet. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn’t this use general AfD and not Web? It seems to be related to a software project, not a website. — Lightcrowd (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Cooper (Model maker)

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

Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage, beyond listings and credits. Declined 5 times at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace repeatedly by User:Orlando Davis who states “ I don't agree with notability tags. The subject may take it personally. Deletion makes more sense, or leave it alone.” so here we are. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Film, and Visual arts. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fine-Scale Modeler, The Evening Independent, and Bay News 9 are all highly reliable and independent. The film credits and interview articles should be noted. Significant changes have been made after each time it was turned down. Orlando Davis (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With niche sourcing like Fine-Scale Modeler, one good way to establish it as a RS is to show where the source is seen as a RS by other RS, particularly academic/scholarly sources. Offhand I see it used listed in a further reading section in this CRC Press book and a note in this Taylor & Francis. I wasn't able to find much more. The magazine was owned by Kalmbach Media but was sold to Firecrown Media last year. It looks like this is probably usable, but I'd recommend running it through WP:RS/N to be certain.

As far as interviews go, those are seen as primary sources regardless of where they're posted unless they're written in prose. The standard interview format is pretty much just question and answer, without any sort of accompanying article. As such, they almost always have little to no editorial oversight or fact-checking beyond formatting and spell-check. This is a very widely held stance on Wikipedia and is unlikely to ever change.

Now, when it comes to film credits the issue here is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the person working on a notable production or with notable people. The reason for this is that there can be hundreds to even thousands of people working on a film. According to this, over 3,000 people worked on Iron Man 3, so just working on a notable film isn't enough to establish notability - you need coverage in independent and reliable sources that specific highlight the person in question. So if there was a RS review that stated "Randy Cooper's work on IM2 was fantastic", that would count. However with his work being so specific, it's unlikely that he would be highlighted over say, the person or company who was overall in charge of VFX.

Finally, I guess I'd be remiss if I didn't say that local coverage tends to be kind of seen as routine on Wikipedia as local outlets are more likely to cover a local person. So in this case what you will need to do is help establish how this coverage should be seen as more than just local, routine coverage. Viewership/circulation numbers are a great way of doing this. So for example, a local paper with a fairly low readership would be seen as kind of routine whereas say, an article in a major, well circulated paper would be seen as a much stronger source. Now to be fair, there's nothing official saying that local coverage can't be used, but it is typically seen as a weaker source and shouldn't be doing the heavy lifting in an AfD discussion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response.

Bay News has a very high viewership (1.76 Million), (source 11). Charter Communications

The Evening Independent was a major newspaper in the Tampa Bay area and was merged as the Tampa Bay Times in 1986, which has a circulation of over 100k not including the more widely read digital edition. 1)Times Publishing Company 2) Tampa Bay Times Orlando Davis (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fine Scale Modeler magazine is ok for sourcing, the rest either aren't online, trivial mentions or primary sources. I can't pull anything up. Just not enough sourcing for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have two solid sources so far: Fine Scale Modeler and the Evening Independent. Also, we should be able to use the five interviews due to the Ignore-all-rules rule since it is an article that is obviously notable, and the rules are getting in the way. Interviews by the hobby magazines Sci-Fi-Modeler., Psycho Moya Styrene, the YouTube channels Richard Cleveland (Amazing Plastic), Adam Savage’s Tested (A YouTube channel with almost 7 million subscribers and the public television Bay news, with a viewership of 1.76 million make Randy notable, and the Ignore All Rules rule was put in place for situations like this when the rules get in the way of an obviously notable article. He built many models that were used for major films such as Starship Troopers, Iron Man 2, Stargate, Spider-Man 2, and many others. Just looking at his older models, it's obvious that the style of spaceships he created was used for Starship Troopers, a major movie!

And what's the difference between an interview and an article in this case? For this article, the part that matters for notability is that he is significant enough to be written about and interviewed by various significant sources. Orlando Davis (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Orlando Davis and the extent of the sources. Meets GNG and highlights the career of one of the notable science fiction model designers. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sci-fi & Fantasy Modeller, and Fine Scale Modeler are credible sources where he is the interview subject. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Dallas Contemporary (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review

Architecture

2025 Arnhem city fire

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. No WP:SUSTAINED coverage. XYZ1233212 (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Events, and Netherlands. XYZ1233212 (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is nothing routine about huge fires in city centers of the Netherlands that wipe out a huge block of buildings. 25 buildings destroyed, including a national and several city monumental buildings are major IMPACTs. This article, part of sustained coverage, literally states that the impacts are lasting. Coverage is SUSTAINED and ongoing from March, with the most recent articles published just hours ago.[17][18] Unclear why this was nominated. There is a stated rationale yet it isn't correct. gidonb (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All coverage is breaking news about the fire itself or updates since then. A dearth of retrospective analysis. "It feels important" does not confer notability. There's also a WP:NOPAGE argument, as there's no valid justification for this to not be covered at Arnhem if better sourcing is found (is it not mentioned there because it's not important, or because it is important but we instead opted for bragging rights of a "new" article?). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 14:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shinnyō-ji

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

Contested redirect without improvement. Currently 2 unreliable and 1 primary source. Searches revealed lots of mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Buddhist temples in Japan, as the nominator has stated, this temple lacks in-depth, independent coverage. Article appears to be an unattributed translation of as their format any content are identical. Another thing worth mentioning is that, according to , there are multiple temples with the same name, and the name hits mentioned by the nominator may be inflated by that. Not sure if the temple should be mentioned due to the lack of good sources, though. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has anyone who reads Japanese checked the databases to see whether this is a listed historic monument and therefore meets the criteria of WP:GEOFEAT? Shouldn't be deleted until someone has done so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Park Plaza Westminster Bridge

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

No significant coverage. Aŭstriano (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, United Kingdom, and England. Aŭstriano (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ WP:MILL hotel property; the article talks more about the former 'eyesore' building occupying its plot than the actual current hotel. Nathannah • 📮 17:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gol-dangit Cunard, you did it again, you rescued another article with details about the actual buildings, with details about how an eyesore was replaced by a sterile tin can that's a competent hotel. Switching to keep. Nathannah • 📮 01:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely run of the mill hotel. The majority of the sources about this hotel are about how an eyesore of a derelict was replaced (by this sterile tin can). King Charles III shudders every time he passes by. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Engineered constructs says:
Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

Sources
1. "Park Plaza Westminster Bridge: A claustrophobic monolith with good gadgets and bad views". The Times. 2010-05-01. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
  The review notes: "Sitting in the Primo bar of this vast new 1,021-room hotel — the biggest in London — we looked out of the window and tried to take in Big Ben at sunset. There should have been a clear view to the Houses of Parliament from the building, which resembles an enormous tenpin bowling ball with the top sliced off, and is on the roundabout site of the long-derelict former offices of the Inner London Education Authority. But despite the location just south of Westminster Bridge — we wanted to be close to the action in the run-up to the election — it was difficult to catch a glimpse of Westminster Palace, the target of Brown, Clegg and Cameron’s ambitions."
2. Coren, Giles (2010-07-03). "Giles Coren reviews Brasserie Joël, London SE1". The Times. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
  The review notes: "It’s hard to know where to start with the chop-slapping accuracy of the phrase “horrible place”. You know the roundabout on the south side of Westminster Bridge which has been a huge stinking mess of building site behind vast forbidding hoardings for about 200 years? Well, now it’s even uglier. Because what is there now is a big round black thing called the Westminster Bridge Park Plaza – although I believe they brand it “Park Plaza Westminster Bridge” to make absolutely certain you are aware it is a grand international chain, and the famous river crossing is merely tagged on as an address to help Japanese overnighters give easy directions to their taxi. This hulking carbuncstrosity – which claims (by all the gods) to be a “design-led hotel”, as if that were a positive thing in some way – is self-besplattered with enormous bill posters (which is not very “design-led” if you ask me) advertising “500 Studio Rooms ideal for families”, “Five distinctive dining and entertainment experiences”, “1,200 square-metre, pillar-free ballroom”, “31 additional meeting rooms, two executive lounges and free Wi-Fi throughout” and “Spa with eight treatment rooms and a Fitness Centre complete with 15-metre swimming pool”. Ooh, “pillar-free”. How thrilling."
3. Jeffs, Lotte (October 2010). "Hotel of the Month: Park Plaza Westminster". Diva. p. 70. ProQuest 2370993087.
  The review notes: "Westminster's Park Plaza offers all the inconspicuousness of a big city chain hotel, but with those stylish flourishes and designer details that make doing the dirty feel a little less sordid. Make sure you book a room above the fifth floor to enjoy a panoramic view of the Houses of Parliament (that other den of iniquity), the Thames and a load of little people with far less glamorous and exciting lives than yours - obviously - scurrying home to their partners over Westminster Bridge. The rooms themselves offer everything you need for a night of illicit infidelity - namely a big comfy bed, a power shower and a Do Not Disturb sign. The hotel's restaurant serves really good, elegant, first-date food (no burritos that will leave a trail of salsa down your chin and have your mistress wondering if she really is doing the wrong thing!), the lighting is flattering and the service attentive but not too much so. There's also a good-sized pool and spa at the hotel so you can feel thoroughly cleansed the morning after the night before."
4. Phillips, Jessica (2024-05-02). "The 24 best romantic hotels in London". Time Out. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
  The review notes: "Run by mammoth hotel chain Radisson, who also run the Park Inn and art 'otel brands, Park Plaza Westminster is a slick operation that also caters to the masses. With 1,023 rooms and suites, it's closer to a cruise ship than to its neighbour and rival, Premier Inn. Rooms are stripped back, with white walls and a dark wooden table making up the skeleton of the space. The minimalism is deliberate; the majority of rooms have a screensaver view of the Houses of Parliament, Big Ben and The London Eye. So close are you to the Elizabeth Tower, you might as well be reading the ten o' clock news. The hotel has a gym, pool, steam room, sauna and spa. Brasserie Joel is also a dining experience worth slowing down for. The French restaurant serves up classics like beef bourguignon, guinea fowl and French onion soup alongside an extensive wine menu."
5. Syz, Francesca (2010-07-31). "Four of the best hotels by the Thames, by Francesca Syz". The Daily Telegraph. ProQuest 734431511.
  The review notes: "After years of having to look at a monstrous office block at the centre of the roundabout just south of Westminster Bridge, we now have something new and infinitely nicer to consider - the futuristic, cylindershaped Park Plaza Westminster Bridge Hotel. Located a minute's walk from the London Eye and two minutes from the Houses of Parliament, this 1,021-room hotel is an ideal base for a sightseeing weekend in London. While not directly on the river, the hotel has uninterrupted views of Westminster Bridge. More than half the rooms have their own kitchenettes, and 27 have outdoor terraces (these rooms will open shortly). There's also a brasserie-style restaurant, a sushi bar, coffee shop and an eight-treatment-room spa with a swimming-pool and gym. While rooms with river views cannot be guaranteed, you can request one; and here's a tip - any room with the number 69 in it will have a river view (269, 369 etc). From floors two to seven, you can see Westminster Bridge, Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament; from floors eight to 12, you will see the river, too."
6. Carmichael, Sri (2009-07-22). "Super-green hotel will bottle its own brand of mineral water". Evening Standard. Factiva NS00000020090724e57m0000c. Archived from the original on 2025-06-09. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
  The article notes: "The largest hotel ever built in London will bottle all its own water to offer guests instead of expensive mineral brands.The final beam of the £350 million Park Plaza Westminster Bridge hotel was bolted into place by Mayor Boris Johnson last night at the 'topping out' ceremony.The 1,021-room riverside hotel on the South Bank, which offers uninterrupted views of the Houses of Parliament from the former site of the Greater London Council building, will be one of the greenest in the capital once it opens early next year.The onsite water plant is expected to produce more than a million bottles of triple-filtered tap water ‹ sparkling and still ‹ each year, using 10,000 reusable sterilised bottles for the hotel's restaurants, mini-bars and spa."
7. Chesters, Laura (2010-04-16). "Check-out time at Park Plaza: Investors struggle to find mortgages for $300m hotel rooms". Property Week. Factiva CSYR000020100416e64g00002.
  The article notes: "More than 840 investors have been refused mortgages on £300m of luxury hotel rooms they were to buy at a recently completed development in central London.In 2007, investors put down deposits for rooms at the Park Plaza Westminster Bridge London, a 1,021-room apart-hotel and conference venue that opened last month.On 6 April the developer, Park Plaza, served notice to the investors to complete their purchases.Park Plaza had sold the hotel rooms off plan to private investors.The buyers agreed to pay £300,000 on average for a hotel room with the promise of a 6% annual return on their money over five years.But the downturn and the lack of bank finance means no investor has been able to secure a mortgage against the assets on a non-recourse basis."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Park Plaza Westminster Bridge to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep per the excellent WP:HEY work done. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Roofing Contractors Association

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

Declined prod that was redirected to Reid Ribble. Ribble was only president for 2 years and his article contains no information on what this association is/did. Article created by a single purpose account.

A search in google news only comes up with roofing related sources which are not independent for meeting WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nativity of the Virgin Mary Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral, Sterling Heights, Michigan

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

This building doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. I added the only sources I could find to the article, and the only secondary source with significant coverage is Mactel Australian Macedonian News, which looks tenuously reliable to me. There may be significant coverage in Macedonian language sources. No obvious redirect targets. Suriname0 (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, North Macedonia, and Michigan. Suriname0 (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content itself is mostly generic info about the church and a piece of trivia about it. No indication as to why it is relevant in itself, probably best to include information about it in the Macedonian Orthodox Church linked in the article itself. 37.211.69.56 (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Suriname0 (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To my knowledge we have never deleted a single article about a cathedral of a significant denomination. Don't see any reason why we should start now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Necrothesp, this is my first nom of a building, so I'm glad to hear from an editor experienced in the space. Can you point me to the notability guideline you're using? I only see WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING, neither of which seem to be met here. Suriname0 (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merely precedent and the fact that cathedrals are by definition significant buildings, so I think WP:COMMONSENSE could be said to apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Reasons to keep: Cathedral, over 50 years old. Reason to delete: not a huge amount of sources independent of the denomination. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I don't like arguing that there's presumed notability, but we have verified that the cathedral is real and part of a major denomination (as opposed to a denomination of eight people with a house they call a cathedral). A good AtD option should deletion look more likely is redirecting to Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of America and Canada, the diocese that the cathedral is the seat of. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of America and Canada: I am as likely as Necrothesp to lean toward keeping an article on a cathedral of a major church tradition, but I don't think that's the best option here -- precisely because I don't think we can currently verify it is a cathedral. The church's website uses the name church for it, with one brief mention to cathedral in its history. Same with MACTEL. A search of the book South Slavs in Michigan doesn't turn up a reference to its being a cathedral. Meanwhile, our article on the diocese says that another church is the cathedral: Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary, Reynoldsburg. The diocese's website is long dormant and auto-translate isn't working well on the archived version so it's hard to verify with that source. In the absence of strong evidence that this church is indeed the cathedral or a recognized co-cathedral I don't think we even have grounds for an WP:IAR keep so I am going with an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect InvisibleUser909 (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would anyone like to reconsider their !votes in light of Dclemens's findings?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per its long history, reasonable population and being the headquarter of a recognized diocese. Patre23 (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ilija Macedonian Orthodox Church, Mississauga

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

Already had a notability template on it. Can't really find any information about it online except the church's "About" page, which has been directly copy-pasted into the article. Currently have a copyvio template up, but it might be best for the article to just go. Spookyaki (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spookyaki (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Christianity. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously self-promotional article of the church. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will note that I tagged this article for notability alongside the other North American Macedonian Orthodox churches listed in this template: St. Nedela (Ajax), Sts. Cyril & Methody (Blasdell), St. Mary (Cambridge), St. Naum of Ohrid (Hamilton), St. Dimitrija Solunski (Markham), St. Ilija (Mississauga), Nativity of the Virgin Mary (Sterling Heights), Dormition of the Virgin Mary (Reynoldsburg), St. Clement of Ohrid (Toronto), St. Nicholas (Windsor). Not explicitly voting here because I haven't conducted a detailed WP:BEFORE, but I'll note that I'm not optimistic based on the lack of coverage for several other churches on this list I looked at. The best chance for coverage may be in Macedonian-language sources. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Suriname0 (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Junction Colorado Temple

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

1. Subject does not meet WP:GNG as per WP:ORG and WP:NCHURCH. A dash of WP:TOOSOON as it would appear the church is not even open yet.

2. WP:PROMOTIONAL tone.

3. Overt reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources. It would appear that only two secondary sources are here.

Regardless, while points two and three might be addressed, point one will not be.

MWFwiki (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion, although these concerns could be fixed with a re-write so maybe move it to a draft. Sushidude21! (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, possibly until September It looks like this temple will open later this year. That said, you may have a case that the articles on these buildings are overly reliant on LDS Church sources. Looking at this one, we have three articles from two sources (KJCT and KKCO share a newsroom — if I had a nickel for every time Gray Television came up at an AfD I'd reviewed in the last week, I'd have two nickels, but whatever). Every remaining reference is direct from the LDS Church or an affiliate like Church News or LDS Living. There is a substantial amount of puffy wording that could be cut down. I note an earlier redirect attempt was reverted by the creator of the current text. I want to see Happyrain2121 contribute as they have been very active in temple articles. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Draftify': There is likely to be sufficient independent WP:SIGCOV generated after the temple's completion to result in a WP:GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot assume whether or not there will be SIGCOV. Draftspace doesn't exist to park a topic until SIGCOV materializes. If it were opening in a week, sure, I'd support this... but outright claiming that will "likely be sufficient independent SIGCOV" is TOOSOON with a dash of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Regardless, SIGCOV arguably already technically exists, but we don't have it in the form of independent RSs. I'm not arguing to salt the subject, but I also didn't submit this article. MWFwiki (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what draftspace is for. Every other LDS temple has an article. I'm not saying this one should have an article in the absence of SIGCOV. I'm just saying that it's almost certain to have it by the time it's completed. No point in deleting and then having to undelete it later when we can just draftify it until the right coverage emerges. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftspace exists to "improve" an article. It is not "exactly" for parking an article to wait for SIGCOV to materialize. We also cannot assume SIGCOV will exist or not. It doesn't, presently. WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is not a replacement for SIGCOV. MWFwiki (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Improvement" includes looking for and waiting for sources. If in six months there are no sources and the draft is not improved, it will be deleted. If returned to mainspace without improvements, then it can be deleted. I participate a lot at AfD and I've !voted plenty of times for deletion, but it always makes more sense (and is more welcoming to page creators and thus supportive of new editor retention) to give articles on topics likely to be notable in the near future a chance to hang out in draftspace. Regardless, I looked at the history of this page, and it was a redirect before the article was created. Restoring a ~~redirect~~ to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Colorado#Temples will have the same effect as draftification (the expanded article created by @Happyrain2121 remains in the article history, ready to be revived once sufficient sourcing is available) while allowing us to avoid a rather talmudic debate about the purposes of draftspace. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate everyone for taking the time to give feedback on this article.

With all that was mentioned, it seems like the main concern is whether the article meets the general notability guidelines. To align with that, I’ve added several independent sources that demonstrate the consistent coverage of the Grand Junction Temple—not just quick mentions or announcements, and removed the source that is marked as generally not reliable in Wikipedia. I’ve also made some updates to the article itself based on the comments given earlier, including neutralizing the tone, adjusting the language that might have come across as promotional, and improving the source formatting.

Before we wrap up the discussion, I am hoping that you could take another look at the current version of the article. I put in a good amount of effort to find additional independent sources to directly address the concerns mentioned. For example, I added two sources from Western Slope Now, a local news outlet—one from late 2022 and another from April 2025. The fact that they are published in different years and not church-affiliated, shows that this isn’t just a one-time mention.

Regarding church-published sources like Church News, I’ve used them to support basic and factual information. I find that it’s generally consistent with the guidance given in WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Sources, and it aligns with how similar articles use them. If there’s anything that still stands out to be insufficient, I’m more than happy to rework it. Happyrain2121 (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the newly added references?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Newly added independent sources show a WP:GNG pass, even before completion. As noted above, LDS temples are almost always notable so it's no surprise that sufficient coverage was found, even pre-completion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat Castle

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

None of the sources listed mention the castle. Does not meet notability. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westgate Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge

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

I cannot find any independent significant coverage of the bridge. All the sources are either press releases or just some very basic news coverage of the bridge opening. The only SIGCOV I found was written by two men who worked on the bridge and thus not independent. Some information could be merged to Northwestern Motorway Traumnovelle (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Transportation, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This could go both ways - either it's just a routine bridge over a motorway or it passes GNG more so than a routine bridge over the motorway. I think there's just enough coverage that it goes beyond routine, but I can see this one going either way. SportingFlyer T·C 20:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete When it comes down to it, there is no claim of notability in the article for what appears to be a run-of-the-mill pedestrian overpass. Mangoe (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and User:Mangoe above. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 google news hit. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google News is not the arbiter of GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 07:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's an indicator if an entity is covered in major media outlets. LibStar (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The technical paper referred to by the nominator, which they agree is SIGCOV, shows exactly why this bridge is notable. Its structural engineering is sufficiently unusual and innovative that the engineers who designed it were able to write a technical paper on the design and construction of the bridge that was presented and published at an international conference on bridges. If it were a run-of-the-mill bridge, they would not have bothered to write the paper and it would not have been accepted for the conference. Paora (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The technical paper would be a non-independent source as it was written by engineers associated with the bridge. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the technical paper, [19], does seem to make a case for the bridge being innovative, and [20] is further coverage explaining why the bridge was necessary.-Gadfium (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are many articles in the New Zealand Herald and the Western Leader covering the necessity for the bridge, most of which can be found via Newztext and not via Google News. Paora (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People build bridges, for the most part, because they are needed; it doesn't make any given bridge notable. And I don't see a paper by the builder's designers as conferring notability either. If it were widely cited in the literature that would be a different story, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts on that technical paper?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The technical paper is incredibly well-detailed but per WP:INDEPENDENT 'To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia.' The authors of the paper were the engineers for the bridge. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Proposed deletions

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

Arts

Shinji Suzuki

Marbella International Film Festival

Arts Templates for deletion

Arts Proposed deletions

Visual arts

Scott King (artist)

Oxygen Project

Randy Cooper (Model maker)

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review

Architecture

2025 Arnhem city fire

Shinnyō-ji

Park Plaza Westminster Bridge

National Roofing Contractors Association

Nativity of the Virgin Mary Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral, Sterling Heights, Michigan

St. Ilija Macedonian Orthodox Church, Mississauga

Grand Junction Colorado Temple

Democrat Castle

Westgate Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge

Architecture Proposed deletions

Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

Other pages