Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture

WP:DSBUILDING

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:

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|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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Architecture

Frederick Earl Emmons

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

The subject receives WP:SIGCOV in only one very specialist regional reliable source, Pacific Coast Architecture Database. WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources, in practice this means at least two. Following an online search, no further reliable sources, even at a regional level, giving significant coverage have emerged. --Boynamedsue (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Architecture, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for me the second Google result is a reported obituary in the Los Angeles Times.[1]. Work in the LA County Museum of Art[2] Jahaza (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do see additional sources [3], Eichler: Modernism Rebuilds the American Dream pp. 118-19, and Sunnylands: Art and Architecture of the Annenberg Estate in Rancho Mirage, California p. 5. A difficult one because there's not nothing, but there's not a whole lot, either. I have no opinion since it's possible to make arguments in either direction here, would delete if I had to pick between keep or delete just because GNG might be but is not clearly established. SportingFlyer T·C 04:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dogan Kımıllı

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

Fails WP:GNG. Also violates WP:CoI. Kadı Message 22:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Architecture, and Turkey. Kadı Message 22:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. In theory, a mayor of a city of 250,000 people could be notable, but the SPA who created this mess is not helpful. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest structures by category

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

The encyclopedia already has many, many articles listing tall buildings. The encyclopedia also has many categories related to tall buildings.

This new article has several issues: (a) does not conform to proper title convention (should be "List of ..."); (b) 90% of the facts (rows) do not have any citation validating the facts of the row; and most importantly: (c) this list is duplicative of all the other "tall building" lists already in the encyclopedia... every time a new record is broken, this is one more list to update.

If the consensus is to keep this list, at a minimum it must be properly sourced. There is no lack of sources in the other, existing List articles. Noleander (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the above AfD as part of WP:NPP effort. After making the post, I see another editor, User:Remsense had similar thoughts two weeks ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tallest_structures_by_category&diff=1289324742&oldid=1289202581 Remsense deleted the article and replaced it with a redirect to List of tallest buildings and structures. Then, the article creator returned and re-created the article.

Probably should do that same "Delete and redirect" action again. Noleander (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Although if you'd like to change the article name to List of tallest structures by category, I have no objection to that.

The article says, for example, that the tallest clock tower is the Abraj Al Bait, at 601 meters. It links to an article with a list of the tallest clock towers, and another article all about the Abraj Al Bait. Those other articles have sources. Although if you'd like to add sources here too, I'd be in favor of that.

It's true that this article is a bit duplicative of all the other lists. But I think it's useful having a single article like this to combine them all, and see how each category compares to the other. One more list to update isn't that big a deal.

For those who are just joining us, this article used to be a single section of a larger article titled List of tallest buildings and structures. Here is how it looked when they were together. But it didn't really have anything in common with the rest of that article (which was the history of the world's tallest structures), so this section was recently made into a separate article of its own, and the remainder had its name changed. Remsense thought they should stay together, rather than being separate articles, which we discussed. But I don't think anyone has previously suggested it should be deleted altogether. This information has been on Wikipedia at its prior location for a long time. It does lack references, but it's a good article, it's been pretty high profile, and a lot of people have contributed to it. - Burner89751654 (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Comparing tall things -- the great human preoccupation. 2600:8806:2A05:1100:1097:AFF5:4FE9:E15F (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's no real reason for deletion given here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"....this list is duplicative of all the other "tall building" lists already in the encyclopedia". Noleander (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This isn't a new article, it's a very longstanding article that's been split out to a new name. I don't believe it's duplicative, the creator has been working on improving organziation of tallest building lists recently. More sources are certainly needed but there's no basis for deletion given. Reywas92^Talk 04:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Abbé

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The only sourcing is Olympedia and SR (which is to say, the same source) both of which do not satisfy WP:NSPORTS.

WP:BEFORE is rendered difficult by the existence of the composer Franz Liszt (known as "Abbé Liszt" due to his monk-like haircut), but nothing found on Google or Internet Archive other than passing mentions.

The DE Wiki article is an object-lesson in why editors should not engage in original research in primary sources: no we are not in the business of piecing together someone's life story based on marriage/death certificates and entries in the address book that could easily be about someone with the same name! The only not-primary sourcing in the DE Wiki article is this passing mention and this passing mention. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Olympedia gives a decent paragraph, noting among other things that he designed a house that was temporarily the residence of Albert Einstein(!). It seems highly likely there's more to find here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matsya Bhaban

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:NBUILDING nor does it seem like one of the rare notable road intersections (like, for example, Hollywood and Vine). I'm not seeing anything more than passing mentions in the news. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Transportation, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Ranch Casino

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

Non-notable resort. Promotional page. Lacks WP:RS. Fails WP:N. Cabrils (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Architecture, Games, Travel and tourism, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Borderline A7 No claim to or evidence found of Notability Star Mississippi 05:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Mississippi. I didn't see any significant coverage in reliable and independent references which are mentioned in the article. Fade258 (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional article, I was going to say WP:TNT the article, but theres no notability. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California, the tribe who owns the casino, though both articles do need serious help. Nathannah • 📮 17:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is indeed a chance this is or will become a notable building, but I can't make a keep argument, and the article is in such bad shape that even if it is somehow notable, we need to apply WP:TNT. Just noting it here in case this gets recreated at some point. SportingFlyer T·C 23:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Berardo

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

Fails WP:BIO. A co-driver in electric car regularity rally events doesn't get much notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sportspeople, Architecture, Motorsport, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails to show WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Fade258 (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James C. Ford Memorial Bridge

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

very short article which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NGEO; only sources are a document on the bridge's renaming and a list of local bridges. harrz ^talk 19:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep While "very short article which does not meet WP:GNG" the bridge appears to be significant and with sources that are likely out there, it would satisfy Wikipedia:NGEO.19:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)~

Shaping Seattle: Buildings

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

Non-notable local government website. PROD previously declined with a suggestion to merge the content somewhere, but there's no clear place to merge it to -- there's no article for Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (the agency that runs the website) and it would be WP:UNDUE in the main Seattle or even Government and politics of Seattle articles. Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Websites, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the existing references appear to pass GNG, with the King5, GeekWire, and WaPo sites. Have you been able to access and review these? Linkrot appears to have claimed one, and another is paywalled for me. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post article has two sentences: Seattle, though, has already built a platform tracking new real-estate projects that hints at what could be possible. Projects that have to go through a design review are all mapped by the city here, with each one linked to a timeline, images and public documents. Not exactly WP:SIGCOV. King 5, KPLU, and CityLab are all just regurgitating the press release announcing the website, which also doesn't count towards notability. GeekWire is the only one that comes close, but that article is much more about Seattle in Progress than Shaping Seattle. I haven't been able to find anything else that counts towards notability either, with all of the coverage just being "hey, this exists" regurgitations of the press release from 2015 -- nothing from the decade since then. Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this got a routine blurst of PR placement/news coverage in 2015 and nothing since apparently. Doesn't appear encyclopædic. SportingFlyer T·C 23:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tianjin Fourth Central Hospital

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

Similar to the case of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine First Affiliated Hospital, this hospital also appears to fail WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Medicine, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no way a 95-year-old, 880-bed hospital affiliated to (possibly) the best medical university in China is not notable. I'm not going to do a proper source search just this moment, but I will provide references for my claims: [4][5]. Toadspike [Talk] 00:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.This hospital is classified as a Grade A Tertiary Hospital, which means it is one of the highest-level hospitals officially accredited by the Chinese government. It is a non-profit public institution, not commercially operated, and treats tens of thousands of patients annually. Frankly speaking, one reason I focus on writing entries about large public hospitals is to help prevent misleading commercial promotion by smaller private hospitals. The references cited are based on the most authoritative and professional data sources available regarding local healthcare conditions. Has the proposer fulfilled their responsibility in reviewing this content seriously? Have they conducted any academic searches or reviewed relevant literature? I was able to retrieve numerous academic papers through Google Scholar. Or is the proposer simply speculating based on personal unfamiliarity? Such an attitude is neither friendly nor consistent with the rigor and responsibility that this task requires.--Amazingloong (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: GTrang What's your assessment of the existing Chinese sources available in Google, Google News, Google Books, for example? Any other databases you searched? --MarioGom (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Tons of sourcing over in GScholar, [6], [7] deal with the hospital. These are studies of diseases taking place within the patient population of the hospital [8], [9]. Last two might be considered primary, but they help show the importance of the hospital. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the article desperately needs improvement in the form of better sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 23:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The amount of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV is sufficient to meet WP:GNG WP:NOTABILITY requirements for inclusion. The nature of coverage passes the WP:SIGCOV threshold, so the case cannot be made that coverage is WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE, since it is significant and demonstrates WP:IMPACT, therefore justifying a standalone article. I also find that available sources are reliable and independent, removing any concerns about WP:PROMO. Since the subject is notable, WP:NOTABILITY criteria per WP:GNG are met. Additionally, there is plenty of SIGCOV to demonstrate the subject’s notability in a manner that satisfies the relevant guidelines for the subject. ZachH007 (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Proposed deletions

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture

Architecture

Frederick Earl Emmons

Dogan Kımıllı

Tallest structures by category

Franz Abbé

Matsya Bhaban

Chicken Ranch Casino

Alexandre Berardo

James C. Ford Memorial Bridge

Shaping Seattle: Buildings

Tianjin Fourth Central Hospital

Architecture Proposed deletions

Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

Other pages