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

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.[1][2] 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]

"It feels important" does not confer notability. Sure, but that is stating the obvious. The case for keeping is based on SIGCOV, LASTING, and PERSISTENCE. Merging would create UNDUE. gidonb (talk) 15:51, 14 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]

Question - would it be possible to consolidate all these articles into one list that meets WP:NLIST? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Suriname0, since it seems like they might have the most precise knowledge of the articles as a group. Spookyaki (talk) 04:42, 15 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]
Keep. It seems the central point of the argument for deletion revolved around independent sourcing, and the two articles, focused on the temple, both span across multiple years, which meets WP:SIGCOV. This shows enough notability even before the temple will open. HappyRain2121 met the major points addressed, including the tone of the article being too promotional. An article with a "C" grade only needs to cite more than one reliable source (and the article has at least two from that independent source). It seems to already meet the standard of significant coverage, so the page should stay. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 19:45, 13 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, [3], does seem to make a case for the bridge being innovative, and [4] 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/Architecture

Architecture

2025 Arnhem city fire

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

Westgate Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge

Architecture Proposed deletions

Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

Other pages