Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:
  1. 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, 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|Arts|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Arts.
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.


Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts/archive.
Purge page cache watch

Arts

Kira Breed-Wrisley

Kira Breed-Wrisley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kira Breed-Wrisley" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Although the article asserts that Kira Breed-Wrisley's "works have won awards from the Ivy Film Festival and the Syracuse International Film Festival, among others," it provides no references for any awards. A more substantial narrative and better references are needed to establish notability. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Kristin Fairlie

Kristin Fairlie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kristin Fairlie" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

BLP unsourced since 2008 (almost 9 years ago). Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per WP:ENT. She has had several significant roles in notable television shows and movies. Her significant roles, such as in Little Bear, can easily be found by just searching. A couple of seconds alone verified her role as Little Bear. SL93 (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Sourcing is required to verify all of that. No sourcing = no verification of notability. The article is currently unsourced – if it's still unsourced in a week, it should probably be deleted. --IJBall (contribstalk) 03:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
      • That's not how AfD works. SL93 (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
      • And...really? - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Thompson. SL93 (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
        • No, that's exactly how AfD works – notability is demonstrated by sourcing. That's the only real way to demonstrate whether an individual is notable or not. And "really?" what?... --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
          • True, but the keep voters don't need to add those sources to the article. It's not required. The really refers to your comment in that AfD, which is also currently unsourced. SL93 (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
            • "Keep" voters that don't add sources aren't worth much IMO, especially if they quote no sources here either. If you believe an article is worth keeping, you find the sourcing and add it to the article. That's what I do. Meanwhile, the Raymond Thompson discussion belongs at that AfD, not this one... In any case, you've apparently got one source for this one, and it's no more than a passing mention. This one needs much more to merit a "Keep" vote. --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
              • I don't need more than to verify multiple roles to make it pass WP:ENT, passing mentions or not. I can show more references to prove the roles if it makes you happy. I don't think hypocritical opinions (as in the above mentioned other AfD) are worth much either. SL93 (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
              • I have also been participating in AfDs for years, including for many entertainers. I do know that verifying multiple significant roles is enough to keep an article. SL93 (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
                • It's not – what verifies that roles are "notable" is independent sourcing. WP:NACTOR does not trump WP:BASIC, it's meant to support it. --IJBall (contribstalk) 12:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
                  • WP:BASIC says no such thing. SL93 (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
                    • Well, there's no arguing with that... Suffice it to say, if this is still where it is now on Sunday or Monday, I'll be voting "delete". --IJBall (contribstalk) 12:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
                      • I could honestly care less. This was put up for discussion anyway. SL93 (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm beginning the process of adding sources to this article. I'll try to look at it more over the weekend. We'll see if it gets there... --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @IJBall: If it does, just ping me so I can withdraw this. Face-smile.svg Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks Coffee! At the least, I'll put up a "Delete" or "Keep" vote once I've done more work on it... --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Update: I've added a little more sourcing tonight, but I'm still not quite ready to vote "Keep" (though it's getting closer). However, I have found no real sourcing support for Little Bear (TV series). This is the problem with case like this one – the role that you might think would "cinch" someone to clear WP:NACTOR in fact turns out not to be (very) notable in its own right. Basically, children's shows tend to get very little mainline press... I'll try to follow up tomorrow or Tuesday (before the first deadline on this one) to see what else I can find. --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Arts Templates for deletion

Arts Proposed deletions

Visual arts

List of most viewed K-pop music videos

List of most viewed K-pop music videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of most viewed K-pop music videos" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

The article as it now stands is certainly "different" than the list previously deleted. New entries have been added and the list has grown. The problem, however, is exactly the same as that discussed at Talk:K-pop#RfC:_.22Is_a_most_viewed_list_from_several_sources_acceptable.3F.22: This article is synthesis. We do not have reliable sources stating which songs are #1, 2, 3, etc. SummerPhDv2.0 12:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete A clear-cut example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Whatever useful info within this list (if any) can be moved to the main K-pop article, if it's not already there. And I'm not inclined to look. freshacconci (✉) 02:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under CSD clause G4 - recreation of an article previously deleted during discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Osu!! Karate Bu

Osu!! Karate Bu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Osu!! Karate Bu" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
(Find sources: "押忍!!空手部" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Contested WP: PROD. No rationale was provided by the contesting editor, so I'll just copy-and-paste my reasoning from the prod: Fails to meet WP: NBOOK. No supporting references, and no indication of importance (the article even states the subject is "almost completely unknown" outside of Japan). Martin IIIa (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment/Delete - Not that it matters for whether the article should be kept or not, but I think it is a little disingenuous to say that the article has no indication of importance when the first half of the sentence you quote states that it was "widely popular in Japan", a clear claim to importance (also that it ran for a decade and was adapted into a film are both claims to importance). There is no reason to misleadingly quote the article like that when there are plenty of valid reasons for deletion. Anyway, I'm not finding any in-depth sources in English (just things that show it exists and who the cast was), and it doesn't look like the Japanese Wikipedia page has any sources. It also looks like a bunch of the article as currently written is original research. Unless anyone can find sources that support the content in the article, it should be deleted. Calathan (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
We clearly differ in what constitutes an indication of importance. Something like "had a circulation of over one million" would suggest to me at least the possibility of importance (or certainty, if the claim was well-sourced), but excessively vague claims like "widely popular" usually stem from POV-motivated editing rather than from actual popularity.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Tentative weak keep pending the finding of offline Japanese sources. Right now I can't much coverage in Japanese or English. However, it appears that the manga was adapted into a film, which could just be enough to establish notability. Given the manga's age and longevity, it's quite possible that there could be offline Japanese sources out there that aren't available online. If it turns out that it wasn't covered in reliable sources even then, given that it was published in Weekly Shonen Jump, I would suggest a merge/redirect to a WSJ-related article. Pinging Michitaro as it appears he has access to some offline Japanese sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I see some news articles that announced a mah-jong related spinoff. [1] [2] but not much on the original series itself, which ran from 1985 to 1996 so online reviews are highly unlikely unless there are manga reviewers that have recommended it as a classic or something. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete then It's pretty obvious that Osu!! Karate Bu is only "notable" in Japan, so I actually have to "agree" with Martin IIIa, there's no place for these things on English Wikipedia. Luckily it is still available through web archive, so no big deal. I can't see a single advantage in deleting such articles, but that's just me, maybe I am missing something, who knows. It doesn't annoy me the fact that a, b, or c users want to delete x article. What I found "intriguing" is the fact that... apparently these users are pretty random. I checked a little bit Martin IIIa's contributions, sometimes he edits articles (with no decent content) about totally non-notable games/companies however there's no "proposal for deletion". Other times he(?) just adds a bunch of these things in a row. Just because. I guess it's just according to his mood. There are users who have pleasure in creating things (articles in this case) while others have pleasure in "deleting" them. It's part of the human nature. Create vs. Destroy. Martin IIIa must be a specialist in destroying things. --89.180.151.8 (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
If it helps, the article has had no references since 2008. I'm not seeing much potential to develop an article. But I agree it can be thrown into a wikia or recovered, should such sources warrant bringing it back. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The same article is already over at the Manga wiki [3]. I think Dream Focus had been importing a lot (maybe all?) of our manga articles to that wiki, so I think most of our manga articles are already on Wikia. Calathan (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Carolla Zap

Carolla Zap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Carolla Zap" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I find very little coverage of this person that would establish notability, and I don't think a Young Entrepreneurs of the Year Award from the Small Business Administration[4] suffices to get her over the fence in terms of notability as an artist. Largoplazo (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Just a note for context - this is a new article created 20 minutes ago, as part of an editathon that I'm helping with. I'm working with the author on developing and improving the article today. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, here are the sources of notability we found: a student grant from CMU, SBA award, MTV interview, a few newspaper articles. I fleshed out the article a bit to make sure they're visible. It's something, but I'm also not sure if it's enough to get the article over the notability fence. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The main contributor to the article appears to have a COI. It is unfortunate that this wasn't brought up during the edit-a-thon. Perhaps this article could be userfied until more sources are added, then sent to Draft to let other users write the article, and minimize the COI. Mduvekot (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Good point, I wasn't looking for COI during the busy editathon, and I should have. I don't think the article suffers much from it though, other than that it probably wouldn't have been created without a personal connection of some kind. After the deletion nomination, we put a copy in User:Claudinezapfriedberg/sandbox so it can be further developed if other sources turn up later. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Casa Cuba

Casa Cuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Casa Cuba" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

fails WP:GNG. gnews refers to "Casa cuba" in a different context not this gallery. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep This a Cuban cultural initiative in Malaysia. It is similar to Canada house in London, but a lot less notable and famous. I did find several decent refs and added them. The organization is real, the refs and notability are real but not extremely strong. I am not sure how it hurts Wikipedia to keep the article. It might actually provide a minimal service to readers. If kept it should be renamed to Casa Cuba (Malacca) or (Malaysia) as there are other Casa Cubas (e.g. I saw refs for one in Tampa).198.58.162.200 (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete When people argue to keep it "it is a lot less notable" than other institutions, this means it is not notable and does not pass our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Allen (artist)

Jonathan Allen (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jonathan Allen (artist)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:NARTIST. A search for substantial independent sources found nothing, unlike the footballer with the same name. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep While the article needs a puffery trim, it only took me a few seconds to find this long quote in the reflist, from the Guardian. This is half off the text that talks about him in The Guardian: "And what of Tommy Angel, stage magician, illusionist and burning-bible thumping "gospel magician"? Like François's deluded soapbox man, he wants us to believe in what can't be proved. Angel is in fact the invention of artist Jonathan Allen, who has cast himself in the role of gospel evangelist, with his sparkly suit and too-perfect smile. His persuasive powers are those of the stage illusionist, with his seamless patter, his boxes of tricks, his smoke and mirrors and misdirections. When I met Allen, briefly, last week, he was negotiating the hire of a live lion for a new act, in which he wished to replicate the story of St Jerome."
I then did a proper search and turned up a significant mention in Cabinet Magazine, a small review in PhotoVideo magazine, a Google Books mention in Art21, mentions in this book on blaphemy in art, and his inclusion in this show at Mass Moca.
From the above I think he satisfies the basic WP:GNG requirement for distributed sources. The Guardian especially is convincing. Any show at Mass Moca is a significant show, given the institution, so from that I take that he also satisfies WP:ARTIST.198.58.162.200 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review


Architecture

Ionic Composite Lodge No. 520

Ionic Composite Lodge No. 520 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ionic Composite Lodge No. 520" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Individual Masonic lodges , just like the local groups of other large organizations, are not notable. The refs are trivial. I would have listed it for speedy A7, but it's a declined prod. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. The article includes a section on the building shared by this lodge and others, the "Ionic Masonic Center" (as it is labelled on the building, seen in photo). The article has an NRHP infobox (it should have a more generic building infobox instead), but the building was built in 1850 apparently and at any rate it is not listed. The building can be mentioned in List of Masonic buildings in the United States#California; i will try to add something there now. --doncram 18:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    • According to the article, the building was built in 1950 (not 1850). So it isn't as if it were especially old. More importantly, since the building isn't on any historical register (such as the NRHP), then it does not meet the inclusion requirements for that list. I have removed it. Blueboar (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I added/merged material about the building to List of Masonic buildings in the United States#California, where it is listed as "Ionic Masonic Center". This article about one of the Masonic groups which meets there is not needed. --doncram 18:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - does not pass WP:ORG. Non-notable local chapter of notable parent org. Does not seem as if the building is particularly notable either. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

List of historic properties in Buckeye, Arizona

List of historic properties in Buckeye, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of historic properties in Buckeye, Arizona" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Per WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:IG and WP:LISTCRITERIA. Only the Buckeye Union High School and Hassayampa River Bridge are listed on the NRHP. The rest of the photos and descriptions are of local, non-notable buildings. The history of Buckeye should be placed on the Buckeye, Arizona article. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep - The Buckeye Union High School and Hassayampa River Bridge are listed on the NRHP as stated, however that in itself does not make those the only properties with historical significance in Buckeye. There are many properties which are listed as such by the Buckeye Valley Historical and Archaeological Society and those are the ones listed on the article. Evidence of this claim can be found in the following reliable sources: Buckeye Parks and Recreation Master Plan and The Early Days of Buckeye, Arizona. These are properties which are important in the history and the development of Buckeye and as such may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. I have tried in the past to include them in the Buckeye article, but the nominator removed many of the images and changed the format. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:LISTCRITERIA. The Buckeye Pharmacy is not considered "notable" the same way an NRHP property is. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry - Your link does not lead to a "Buckeye, Arizona#National Register of Historic Places" as intended. The section and images in the article were completely removed by the nominator. It should be noted that one end of the historic Gillespie Dam Highway Bridge is located in the municipal jurisdiction of Buckeye and the other in the municipal jurisdiction of Gila Bend. Plus, the historic Hassayampa River Bridge is located on the Old US 80 of the municipality of Buckeye which includes the communities of Liberty, Arlington, Palo Verde, Verrado and Buena Vista.
This map shows both the dam and bridge outside Buckeye's city limits. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
In another note, the structures listed are recognized as historical by a local governmental organization and not just by any local group or groups. Every city has an organization which determines which structure is historical. In this case it is the Buckeye Parks and Recreation Master Plan, a local government agency. This is not the job of the NRHP. Once they do that, they have the option of filling out a National Register of Historic Places form and submitting it. However, just because a property is not listed in the NRHP, does not mean that it is not historical in accordance to the the town or city criteria. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, although editing is needed / would improve the article. Some negative tagging would justified, because the article is somewhat promotional and grandiose, stepping beyond what is claimed in the itself-promotional "Master Plan" document. For example, currently the article claims "Some of the structures are listed in the National Register of Historic Properties" which is an overstatement; it should just name the ones that are (which I think is just one, the high school building). It also makes overstatement and/or nonsensical statement: "Those that are not listed are considered historical by the Buckeye Parks and Recreation Master Plan and therefore, determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under criterion 'A' because of its association with the locally important history of reclamation and is a Section 4 (f) resource." The "Master Plan" suggests that two historic districts might be proposed for NRHP listing; that is far from anyone having determined anything eligible for NRHP listing, which is a phrase that has a very specific meaning (the NRHP itself determines that something is NRHP-eligible although not NRHP-listed sometimes in the case of NRHP nominations that meet all criteria for eligibility but where the owner objects to listing). To be clear, the town does not get to determine what is NRHP-eligible. Note, however, that buildings mentioned in the "Master Plan" are not equivalent to Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments or other local historic registry items which have individually been considered and designated by a local legislative body. Here there is no local historic register. To be clear, the town has not specifically designated any of these as official historic resources of the town. The town council or whatever could do that, but they have not. I think it is still okay to have an article about the local historic resources, but it should be edited to be truthful and careful about its claims. --doncram 01:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Truly an excellent suggestion. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Prince Consort Road stadium

Prince Consort Road stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Prince Consort Road stadium" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article about a planned stadium that never materialised. Deserves brief coverage at Gateshead F.C.#Stadium (where it is already mentioned), but I can't see justification for an article on it. Number 57 15:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable stadium that never happened. SL93 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - would fail WP:GEOFEAT even if it had gone ahead. Fenix down (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Holhuashi

Holhuashi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Holhuashi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Unsourced. Seems like a hoax. (Withdrew statement after provision of sources) RoCo(talk) 15:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: I'm also concerned about the notability of the subject in the article. RoCo(talk) 23:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
A quick search that doesn't exceed the search you should have done WP:BEFORE shows that enough sources exist to confirm that this is definitely no hoax.Burning Pillar (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Burning Pillar: With all due respect, may I ask you to provide some reliable sources that I couldn't find upon searching? RoCo(talk) 20:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You see these results(just look at the first 8 pages) and you really suspect that this is a WP:HOAX? This is not a hoax. That doesn't make it worthy for inclusion... but even passing mentions in many sources of sufficient reliability establish the existance(but not the notability) of the subject.Burning Pillar (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Burning Pillar:Could you please cite some sources here? Maybe I'll withdraw this nomination (and confirm notability could be established) if you're able to give some sources that ensure it is not a hoax. RoCo(talk) 21:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It is extremely unlikely that a book, a website by surfers,

a hotel, this site(in German) and this site are all contributing to a hoax.Burning Pillar (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Burning Pillar: Affirmative, not a hoax. However, I'm concerned about the notability of the subject. RoCo(talk) 21:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral for the following reasons: firstly, no valid deletion rationale has been provided - see the first entry under WP:SKCRIT. Secondly however, I do not feel able to evaluate the notability of this subject as I suspect most of the sources that cover this subject in detail will not be in english. Of course, Wikipedia does not exclude sources in other languages, I'm just not able to speak them with any fluency. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

John A. Bryant

John A. Bryant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "John A. Bryant" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Questionable notability since November 2011. Fails WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE and WP:GNG. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete A big problem is that the GM tech center was built in the 1950s, while Bryant died in 1938. His firm may be notable, but the sources do not suggest he is notable as a person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, on the basis that the Wikipedia article suggests his father was more notable than him. It reads very much like a genealogical peice. I've searched Findmypast's US newspaper archive and can't spot anything about him, his life or death. The only ciation at the moment is a book published by his company, so hardly a neutral source. Sionk (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Casa Cuba

Casa Cuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Casa Cuba" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

fails WP:GNG. gnews refers to "Casa cuba" in a different context not this gallery. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep This a Cuban cultural initiative in Malaysia. It is similar to Canada house in London, but a lot less notable and famous. I did find several decent refs and added them. The organization is real, the refs and notability are real but not extremely strong. I am not sure how it hurts Wikipedia to keep the article. It might actually provide a minimal service to readers. If kept it should be renamed to Casa Cuba (Malacca) or (Malaysia) as there are other Casa Cubas (e.g. I saw refs for one in Tampa).198.58.162.200 (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete When people argue to keep it "it is a lot less notable" than other institutions, this means it is not notable and does not pass our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

EXMACT

EXMACT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "EXMACT" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable company. Winged Blades Godric 08:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete The current article is very promotional, and I can't find any independent sources to verify its notability. Fails WP:CORP/WP:PRODUCT. clpo13(talk) 21:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As the article is about a product we think that company notability is not important as noted in WP:PRODUCT. Therefore we think WP:CORP should not be applied. Notability of software is defined at WP:NSOFT. At least one of 4 points is required. EXMACT meets at least "It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs." We think it meets also "It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field." but of course it depends on definition of reliable sources. We think that a scientific conference and Czech Department of Industry can be considered as reliable sources.Pahlo7 (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Selangor Bio Bay

Selangor Bio Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Selangor Bio Bay" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non notable "hi-tech area" fails WP:NGEOG because its not a natural place (like a pond or creek) or a road. If it is an actual structure, those have to pass GNG (at the least), and this doesn't. There are 4 or 5 news sources, but WIKIISNOT a list of every corporate structure ever. L3X1 (distant write) 02:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The nominator is mistaken. The guideline here is WP:GEOLAND, which covers populated places. In this case, it would seem to be a district, and so I believe GNG would apply. Gnews does reveal some articles. Searching for the Malaysian name might yield more. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
So it appears that this is an actual structure, and thus not covered under GEOLAND. The MY press has 5 or 6 articles on it, but I don't think that is enough to establish notability. In light of 22 Cortlandt St. AfD, I think this sin't going to pass GNg either. L3X1 (distant write) 14:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
First ping didn't take Shawn in Montreal L3X1 (distant write) 16:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
No, it is clearly stated to be a "970-acre high-technology area. So it's clearly not a single structure. With all due respect, you should not be nominating articles for deletion without understanding the content. It couldn't be more clear that this is not a single structure, and I'm having trouble understanding why this is unclear to you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The nominator is using "structure" to mean something different. Yes, erected populated places -- collections of structures that form districts -- are clearly covered by WP:GEOLAND. But that is besides the point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll do the nominator a service and make his or her case, succinctly. This appears to be a stub on a recently announced planned high-tech business district. It is therefore likely not yet notable, even when local language sources are taken into account, based on what we can find. I have categorized it and added it to Template:Selangor, to get some eyeballs on it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not a "legally recognised populated place", but rather a commercial development (an office complex). In addition this is WP:TOOSOON with sparse coverage. Delete for now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The Peak Apartments

The Peak Apartments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Peak Apartments" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable residential development. Significant RS coverage not found. I've found one press release and one catalog listing. The content is routine: how many units, etc. Notability not inherited from the Paddy's Market atop of which the building sits.

Tagged for notability since 2008. Created by Special:Contributions/Mynameisbobobobob with no other contributions outside of the Australian real estate market. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the reasons outlined by the nominator. Even the title of the cited 1997 offline article doesn't suggest it is solely about The Peak. Sysney has a large number of tall buildings so this residential block isn't remarkable in any respect. Sionk (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment If consensus ends up being to delete here, I would strongly suggest a redirect to List of tallest buildings in Sydney -- Whats new?(talk) 23:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC(talk) 02:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: The list-article List of tallest buildings in Sydney contains substantial assertion (omitted from the AFD subject article) that the subject was "Tallest residential building in Sydney from 1996–1997" and it is still tied for 21st. I don't doubt the accuracy of that; it should be in the article. I expect that newspapers covered the construction in sources that are not conveniently online to find right now, though I haven't looked. I waver but suggest Keep rather than merge/redirect; nothing is gained by removing this from view IMHO. Certainly the outcome should not be an outright delete; merge/redirect to the row in the list-article is far better. --doncram 03:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I really want to support Doncram, but I can't find anything reliable that discusses the topic, and I just don't think that the claim Doncram identified is a reason to keep the article. However, I also don't agree with the nominator's claim that this is a promotional article. Sorry, closing admin, I can't help you one way or the other. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I really want to support Doncram as well; theoretically it may be notable. Unfortunately I suspect few avid historians of the history of The Peak Apartments exist, as there are currently no endowed chairs for this endeavor. I've rescued worse before but the muse has not moved me on this one.--Milowenthasspoken 04:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: From searching on "Peak Apartments Sydney 1996 construction", yields, behind paywall for me: The Sydney Morning Herald from Sydney, New South Wales · Page 87 / [https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/123768159/ Aug 31, 1996 - ... Herald (Sydney, New South Wales), Saturday, August 31, 1996, Page 87. ... ON THEIR BOOKS Under construction in the CBD Leighton Sydney .... apartment development and the $125 million Peak Apartments, and is also ..." Interesting that it was a $125 million project, and there would be more info in that article and others of that era. This is evidence of coverage existing; we don't need it in hand to do the right thing. --doncram 04:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Nom's comment -- the linked coverage strikes me as routine: "it costs so much, its under construction, etc". "Tied for 21st tallest building in Sydney" is not remarkable either. Nothing stands out about this particular development to warrant an encyclopedia entry. However, I would be okay with a redirect to List of tallest buildings in Sydney as suggested. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Commonwealth Association of Architects

Commonwealth Association of Architects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Commonwealth Association of Architects" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH which states that an organisation is notable only if "it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject". The few sources that exist are passing, trivial and routine. AusLondonder (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: On the face of it, a role in professional accreditation would provide a strong claim to notability. However I found this article from Architects Journal: "RIBA stops recognising Commonwealth Association of Architects schools". That said, there appears to be subsequent cooperation between the organisations, at least in running a student competition: [5]. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, per WP:NONPROFIT, it's an internationally active, recognised non-profit accreditation body (though as already pointed out, its standards and approach differ from the RIBA). It's also been active in this capacity for over 50 years (celebrating its golden jubilee in 2015). Sionk (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:ORGSIG states "No company or organisation is considered inherently notable. No organisation is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organisation it is". The length an organisation has been operating also has zero bearing on notability. AusLondonder (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
And your point is? I was arguing that the subject meets WP:NONPROFIT.Sionk (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the article has been improved with additional sources such as Sri Lankan and UK press stories Atlantic306 (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 01:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Architecture Proposed deletions

Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

Other pages

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Arts&oldid=772497698"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Arts
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA