Shortcut
Deletion SortingProject (talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts .mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}vte

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 as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding ((subst:delsort|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.


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

Arts[edit]

DOP Foundation

DOP Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing here indicates any kind of notability. The article has been around for a long time, and it's been in a poor state for a long time. Google proves that the organization exists, but I don't see anything that proves it should have an article here. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pudgy Penguins

Pudgy Penguins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a UPE as the creator also created the article on its owner, Luca Schnetzler which is also at AfD. This is why it has been draftified to go through AfC[1] but it is again directly put back to mainspace by the creator. Since, the notability seems on the borderline and the references looks like paid placements so AfD would be the best place for it. Bhivuti45 (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are arguing to Keep this article why did you tag it for CSD G7? Liz Read! Talk! 17:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arts Templates for deletion[edit]

Arts Proposed deletions[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists


Visual arts[edit]

The Upstage Gallery

The Upstage Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about an art gallery, and added two references to an exhibition. I do not see significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, however. An alternative might be to redirect to Jayhawk Theatre, which has a short, unreferenced section on this gallery. The article has been tagged as possibly not notable since 2017. Tacyarg (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juno Doran

Juno Doran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod was removed, fairly, as exhibition list here shows it could meet WP:NARTIST. I couldn't find sources to show it meets this or WP:GNG, however. Boleyn (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found and added source re her competition-finalist self-portrait featured in book. PamD 11:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions[edit]

Visual arts - Images for Deletion[edit]

Visual arts - Deletion Review[edit]


Architecture[edit]

Heart of Antalya

Heart of Antalya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails general notability guideline and notability guidelines for geographic features (specifically WP:NBUILD). sources in article are primary or unreliable (daily sabah being a government-owned website, so rather tentative). search for sources finds similar unreliable sources or promotions for tourism to antalya. ltbdl (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus building

Uranus building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a building damaged in a recent earthquake. Nobody died or even was hurt (or at least our article does not say so). I doubt this has stand-alone notability, coverage seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. I recommend merging and redirecting to 2024 Hualien earthquake. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just leave it till the media coverage of the earthquake dies down and focuses on the next earthquake. Brudelman (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in the British Empire and the Commonwealth

List of tallest buildings in the British Empire and the Commonwealth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject doesn't seem to meet the WP:NLIST as this grouping is not discussed in secondary sources. Randam (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ağa hamamı

Ağa hamamı (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, as I pointed out at the talk page a while ago. The only source used here is the hammam's own commercial website, which is not a reliable source. It also makes the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that the hammam was built in 1454, the same year of the Ottoman conquest of the city, which would make it one of the oldest Ottoman buildings in the city, if not the oldest. This has no support in actual reliable sources, which make no mention of this (e.g. see references at Tahtakale Hamam, which discuss the oldest hammams and other known Ottoman structures from this era). Judging by the choice of source and by the page creator, I'm also starting to suspect this was a WP:COI. R Prazeres (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low Pavement, Chesterfield

Low Pavement, Chesterfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have not been able to find significant coverage of this road in reliable sources. The sources in the article are listings of individual buildings, but there's no evidence those buildings meet WP:NBUILDING. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is becoming rather philosophical. For me, a street covers the buildings that stand on it, it defines the area in which they stand. It can't just be the strip of tarmac down the middle. Queen Anne's Gate, which I'd agree is more notable than this, is important because it has a stack of Grade I listed buildings, in which notable people lived, worked, socialised, died. I don't think anyone would argue to AfD that, and the same argument holds true here. KJP1 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've summed it up perfectly there. @KJP1 Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a street becomes notable because of the buildings and features on the street, or events taking place on the street, there's not one piece of asphalt/concrete/cobblestone on the planet that is notable solely for existing That is incorrect. Notability is not defined by whether a subject (here, a street) is related to another notable subject (that is what I meant by notability is not inherited) A subject is notable for the purposes of Wikipedia if it meets the WP:GNG. The GNG defines a subject as notable if it has receiced significant coverage in relaivle sources.
Here, Low Pavement, Chesterfield, is not notable just because there may be notable buildings on the street (and as I've noted before, under the subject specific notability guideline for buildings, even being listed isn't enough: you still need to show signifcant coverage).
To use your example, Queen Anne's Gate is notable because a lot of people have written about it as a subject. If people have written significant coverage of Low Pavement, Chesterfield, then it would be notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment

This is not a full source assessment. I've already explained why the fact that a potentially notable shopping mall exists on the street and the fact that royals visited the shopping mall to open it doesn't establish notability. Likewise, a bomb threat at a local pub doesn't establish that the street that the pub is on is notable. Moreover, there is no SNG that states that having several listed buildings on a street establishes notability. If editors would like there to be one, they should suggest that, but we can't invent SNGs to fit our preferences during AfD discussions. To summarize the below, there are two sources, both by the same author, that discuss one aspect of the Low Pavement (its preservation), albeit in the broader context of revitalization of the area. I would not oppose merging some of the information here to Chesterfield, Derbyshire, or in creating an article for The Pavements, since that seems to be notable. I think it's a stretch to say that the street on its own is notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Derbyshire Times Yes Yes No The source states, in full: "The name Low Pavement simply refers to the road on the lower side of the Market Place – the ‘new market’ laid out in the 1190s to replace Chesterfield’s original market place to the north of the parish church. What is now High Street was known as High Pavement until the 19th century." ✘ No
Bagshaw Yes ? No This is a list of businesses on the street from 1846. ✘ No
White Yes Yes No This is a list of businesses on the street from 1852. ✘ No
Bradley Yes Yes ~ Discusses preservation of Low Pavement as part of a broader revitalisation plan. ~ Partial
Sadler Yes Yes No The page linked to reprints an old advertisement from a business on Low Pavement. ✘ No
Picture the Past Yes Yes No This source is a photograph. ✘ No
Chesterfield Online Yes ? No This is a list of businesses on the street. ✘ No
Smith and Sykes Yes Yes No This is a travel guide that reviews some businesses on the street. ✘ No
Marsh No From the website's about page: "Destination Chesterfield delivers a number of marketing campaigns that are helping to improve the economic prosperity of Chesterfield by promoting it as a contemporary destination to inward investors and supporting existing businesses." No No The source merely notes that wosmething called the "Eco Hub" is located on Low Pavement, but does not discuss Low Pavement at all. ✘ No
Appraisal ? Appears to be an appraisal for the Town Council, but the authorship is unclear. ? There is no indication of fact-checking. Yes Contains significant coverage describing the street. ? Unknown
European Heritage Awards Yes Yes No This indicates that the Town Revitalisation won an award, but it does not discuss Low Pavement in any significant detail. ✘ No
Chesterfield Market By the Chesterfield Borough Council. ? Unknown whether this is fact-checked. No Low Pavement isn't even mentioned on this page.https://www.chesterfield.gov.uk/explore-chesterfield/markets-and-market-hall.aspx#:~:text=Chesterfield%20Market%20is%20one%20of,and%20events%20all%20year%20round. ✘ No
Revitalising Chesterfield Market No Govenment website. ? No Regarding Low Pavement, the source states in full: "The re-siting of market stalls currently located in New Square and on Low Pavement into a single market ground of 100 stalls in Market Square – creating a more defined and vibrant market area. The area will also include a flexible events space." ✘ No
Derbyshire Victoria County History Trust Yes Yes No Low Pavement appaers on the page twice, both in captions to photographs. ✘ No
Bradley 2 Yes Yes ~ Discusses preservation of Low Pavement as part of a broader revitalisation plan. ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
Erm. Just discovered the Low Pavement listed buildings are included within Listed buildings in Chesterfield, Derbyshire, which kind of negates my main reason for keeping this. Not sure now, so striking above !vote. Rupples (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

27712 Pacific Coast Highway

27712 Pacific Coast Highway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is WP:BLP1E only. Other coverage is WP:ROUTINE. TarnishedPathtalk 01:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. And WP:NOTNEWS. Point back to the fact that this subject has zero sustained coverage over its existence. JFHJr (㊟) 02:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the seller not the architect? The property was primarily valued at the astronomical sum because of its location not its architect, note that the previous most expensive property sold in California was the one *next door* which was not an Ando. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Merge anyway because the house under discussion is not notable for all the reasons stated by everyone. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that WP:ONEEVENT & WP:BLP1E apply to people, not properties. Rotary Engine talk 04:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure you know who you're responding to and when. I did not cite WP:BLP1E myself. When I cited WP:ONEEVENT yesterday, the article was called "Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s California house" and it was full of text about those two celebrities, so both of those policies are/were relevant anyway. Meanwhile, moving the article's title in the middle of a deletion discussion sure doesn't help much. You guys figure it out. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, how would either the title or the content make WP:ONEEVENT relevant? ONEEVENT is about "People notable for only one event" and neither of the celebrities mentioned fall into that category. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the principal undergirding WP:ONEEVENT would not apply to a building that was only covered in the media in connection with a single event. An example would be Francklyn Cottage (where President James A. Garfield died, having been taken there in hopes of recovery from a gunshot would). BD2412 T 23:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If, in independent, reliable sources, there is sufficient depth of documentation of Francklyn Cottage to satisfy WP:GNG, why should an article not be written on it? Similar to Garfield Tea House; presumably also only noted because of its link to Garfield's death. Rotary Engine talk 01:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trimukhi Baavdi

Trimukhi Baavdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources Sohom (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kooi-Ying Mah

Kooi-Ying Mah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only 2 articles link to this. Nothing in gnews or Australian database trove. 2 small mentions in google books. Fails WP:ARCHITECT. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not ready to vote Keep or delete but want to comment that it is irrelevant if a modern day Australian is not in Trove. Trove is not the only place to look especially if the person is fairly young. Trove newspapers and magazines are generally "digitised up to 1954, with select newspapers and gazettes contributed up to present day (rights and funding permitting)." As an example, a better place to look would be in recent Australian architectural journals through EBSCO or JSTOR.LPascal (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She gets no hits in Jstor. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked JSTOR and from the list I could find, it does not index Australian architectural journals (except for Australian landscape architecture) and the architectural journals it does index are usually UK or US and limited to pre 2020). So I'm just pointing out that when you search for a younger, living Australian in databases to see if they have been written about, you have to understand that some databases mostly include non-Australian reference sources and may be limited in their date coverage, so that you can't assume that a person is non-notable because they don't appear in certain databases of reference sources. If you can find a better list of journals on JSTOR, I'd welcome receiving the link because it's difficult to find.LPascal (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like many AFDs these days, we need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghayebi Dighi Mosque

Ghayebi Dighi Mosque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Not to be confused with the extant Gayebi Mosque in Balaganj Upazila).

All the information about Ghayebi/Gayebi/Gayibi Dighi (a pond) in the two cited sources is: "Simultaneously a good number of sites were explored. These include ..., Gayebi Dighi Mound, ... [in a list of more than a dozen sites]" and "Gayibi Dighi at Bara Thakuri (a stone inscription of 400 years old, now preserved in the Bangladesh national museum, has been discovered from this dighi)". Neither of the sources mention a mosque.

The author of the article asserted, "There are enough sources on the web if searched in Bengali". That is contradicted by my experience. The only other reliable source I could find in any language is another brief mention of the inscription.[9] With zero reliable sources about the mosque (if there ever was one), the topic fails WP:GNG. It is unsuitable for merging or redirection, let alone for a stand alone article. Worldbruce (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Proposed deletions[edit]


Categories[edit]

Requested moves[edit]

See also[edit]

Transcluded pages

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

Other pages

Wikipedia:Wikiproject deletion sorting/visual arts Wikipedia:Wikiproject deletion sorting/architecture

((Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting|arts)) ((Category:wikiproject arts|deletion))

Categories