Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Arts

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.


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

Arts

Red-Herring

Red-Herring (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This magazine does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPERIODICAL. My search on Google, Google Books, and Newspapers.com does not turn up any significant coverage of the magazine. If this WorldCat entry is accurate, it is only held by a single library, and it does not appear to be particularly influential or widely cited. There may be some sources I am missing, as this is an older periodical, so I'd like get input from other editors. – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 21:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 00:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: In general I like the idea of broad coverage of projects. In this case, the Art & Language article includes some material on the preceding The Fox journal but not Red-Herring. That said, aside from this brief mention, I am not finding much which might justify a merge. AllyD ( talk) 08:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete A magazine that publishes only two issues total is not notable. Rogermx ( talk) 20:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Red herring as a plausible search term.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    Not really. Do you think someone searching for the idiom is going to capitalize the second word and put a hyphen between them? – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 14:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, there's a proportion of end users who're terrible at English. Most Wikipedians are accurate with their spelling and capitalization, and in discussions, we're mostly talking to other Wikipedians: people who've self-selected as editors. But we have to consider the full spectrum of end users, bearing in mind that the fact that they're searching for a commonplace English idiom suggests that English may not be their first language.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammadamin karimpor

Arts

Arts Templates for deletion


Arts template for delention

  • ((Wikipedia:template for deletion/log/2008 November 2#template:uk underground))

Arts Proposed deletions


Visual arts

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review


Architecture

St. Andrew's Place

St. Andrew's Place (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:NBUILDING. No indication of historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete or possibly Userfy. This is a student assignment, according to the creator's talk page, so I won't go too far into the problems, but in short this article has next to no independent sourcing, and the tone is not encyclopedic. The St. Andrew's United Church might be notable, but someone would have to find independent sourcing for it. Getwilson13 your teacher should grade you the same whether or not your article is in published article space. It's hard to get articles published here; even seasoned Wikipedia editors sometimes have trouble getting their articles published.--- Possibly ( talk) 22:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment GNG-qualifying sources about the development exist. This is a National Post article, and this story was picked up nationally in Canada, and there's a Globe and Mail source in the article too. It's probably notable enough, but the article needs major cleanup. SportingFlyer T· C 20:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

DSC Hockey Stadium

DSC Hockey Stadium (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Article is incomplete, doesn't meet notability requirements, and is severely outdated (article is about an old project that likely never came to fruition) Carwile2 *Shoot me a message* 15:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Highland Avenue Bridge

Highland Avenue Bridge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This article on a non-notable subject only cites two sources, both of which only mention the subject in passing. The Rappold source actually focuses on a now-demolished bridge at the same location as the subject of this article. The Mead & Hunt source isn't about the subject of this article; it's an inspection report for a dam that's a mile upstream.

I found one additional source that could strengthen this article: Jeffrey Hess's Historic Highway Bridges in Wisconsin, which is a 1986 state Department of Transportation report on preserving old bridges. The only other sources I could find were government records of routine safety inspections (which exist for practically every bridge and dam) and a couple books for kayakers that mention the bridge as a landmark. Even if this article utilized Hess's report as a source, there isn't wide enough coverage at this time for the bridge to meet the "significant coverage" aspect of the general notability guideline. CoatGuy ( talk) 22:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  • My thought is that this and Columbia Mill probably aren't notable enough for their own articles, but could be included elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. I'm just not sure where. SportingFlyer T· C 15:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Possibly Columbia Historic District (Cedarburg, Wisconsin)? The bridge and the mill are both in the immediate area, though neither is technically a contributing property to the NRHP listing. Including this information on that page might help with some of that page's issues as well; it relies almost entirely on one source. CoatGuy ( talk) 15:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Agree it's not a 100% match, but it seems the best match at this point. These articles seem to be a classic case of "the information's good, but there's not enough for a stand-alone." SportingFlyer T· C 16:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Hotel Arthur, Helsinki

Hotel Arthur, Helsinki (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable and wholly unremarkable ROTM city-centre hotel. The article mainly cites the hotel's own website as a source, and for a good reason: a search returns no RS secondary sources. (I must admit I was quite surprised myself, given that the hotel has been there for more than a century, but there we are.) Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 16:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 16:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 16:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom/no RS references. RJFJR ( talk) 18:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

DSC Multi-Purpose Stadium

DSC Multi-Purpose Stadium (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No assertion of notability, only one news article provided, no sign of imminent completion. Carwile2 *Shoot me a message* 20:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

DSC Indoor Arena

DSC Indoor Arena (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No recent articles, no assertion of notability, the page is for a project that was likely never completed Carwile2 *Shoot me a message* 20:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Freight House (La Crosse, Wisconsin)

Freight House (La Crosse, Wisconsin) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BEFORE found no reliable sources other than Yelp and Tripadvisor JTZegers Speak
Aura
15:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hog Farm's argument - meets our notability requirements for buildings and passes general notability Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep NRHP Djflem ( talk) 18:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Any structure listed on the NRHP is deemed notable. I agree, the article is lacking in details, but it can easily be expanded. The NRHP documents offer a wealth of information, from my past experience in writing railway heritage articles. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per NRHP. JackFromWisconsin ( talk | contribs) 12:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Hog Farm, passes obviously WP:GEOFEAT CommanderWaterford ( talk) 16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Kep. On the NRHP. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 20:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: NRHP. CoatGuy ( talk) 22:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Hog Farm. Its a former Milwaukee Road depot; the freight colors are right, but the Wisconsin history org got the name wrong. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul should be Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul and Pacific. Good work, Hog Farm. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 11:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hog Farm - I don't think just being on the NRHP means a building is notable, but it does move things close to notable. The sources found easily get it over the line. SportingFlyer T· C 19:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Hoogholtje bridge

Hoogholtje bridge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Not even sure if the term is legit. It just seems strange that only small province would even use the term. Rusf10 ( talk) 01:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 01:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 01:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to Kwakel bridge. The claims that this type of bridge does not pass the WP:GNG or is illegit cannot be taken seriously. Nominator has a question about these bridges. That's awesome! AfD is the WP:WRONGFORUM. gidonb ( talk) 02:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I am serious and WP:ONUS is not on me. If the article should be kept, provide sources that demonstrate its notability. As of right now there are zero sources. If I go to Google and search for the term, nothing comes up.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 02:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
There are literally hundreds of sources, accessible for example through Google, Google Books, Delpher, the De krant van toen and other databases. Nominator's job is to do an adequate WP:BEFORE and per WP:NEXIST all that matters is that the sources are out there. A hoogholtje is essentially the same as a kwakel or kwakelbrug, in the old Dutch spelling a quakel. I would go for Kwakel bridge as not in a Lower Saxonian dialect but in the language that most readers of English, who are big on travel to the Amsterdam region, will encounter this bridge. I even considered quakel that might have pronunciation advantages but it isn't commonly used in English. What happened to asking a question on a talk page? All people seem to do these days is starting AfDs with any question or requests they might have! gidonb ( talk) 10:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, WP:ONUS is not on me. This is a poor quality article that has been unsourced for 15 years! I actually did WP:BEFORE, Google and Google books bring up nothing (obviously you never looked at either). Your declaration of Sources Exist is not helpful when you refuse to actually provide these sources that you claim to exist.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 14:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
False! This is a common bridge in the Netherlands with huge historical and cultural significance and probably well over thousand sources on the web, as detailed before. The three relevant policies are: WP:BEFORE that was badly done. For example, a user below found three sources while using only Google ( Delpher has hundreds of sources by each name) and speaks no Dutch. Furthermore, the Dutch article says that hoogholtje is the same as kwakel and is linked to that article. The kwakel article is referenced and kwakel has, once again, tons of sources. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, explicitly saying "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." Finally, Wikipedia has no deadline, which you seem to imply. Based on your other AfDs, I assume that you will keep arguing, not withdraw, and this nomination, too, will fail. Once you will do an adequate WP:BEFORE, ask questions on talk pages, be open to knowledge that others, including sources and databases, have to share, and argue less, you will serve WP better or at the very least will finally get your AfD success rates up. gidonb ( talk) 12:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I already proved to you that I did a BEFORE search, problem is WP:ONUS is not on me. There is no way for me to know what an alternate (and perhaps more popular) name would be for this bridge when it doesn't appear in the article. Doing a BEFORE search does not mean spending hours trying to research a topic. And yes, wikipedia does have a deadline for sourcing, it is when the article is created. Articles without sources should not exist. And why don't you strike your false WP:PERSONALATTACK about my AfD success rate. Its actually 68%.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 15:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I searched in several different places. The WP:BEFORE on this wasn't an easy one. SportingFlyer T· C 19:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I can imagine that it was difficult to find "hoogholtje bridge", especially because the bridge is in fact just name "hoogholtje". The Banner  talk 21:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • delete It's pretty obvious what the problem is with this, and I'm getting more than a little irritated at the trend towards trying to dismiss AfDs without looking at the article on terminological grounds. Book hit searching for this produces nothing. Nothing. Web searches don't do enough better. Both the Dutch and Low Saxon WP articles are uncited, so they are no help here for refs. I have to say that a type of bridge for which there are no book hits at all isn't plausibly notable. It makes me doubt it is even a thing at all. Mangoe ( talk) 03:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. jp× g 04:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment This seems to be a real thing from a books search. Might be hard to find enough though to write an article about. A merge seems appropriate, but not sure where to. Jumpytoo Talk 04:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep It's clearly a real thing, both the speedy keep and the delete !votes are lacking so far. However, this, this, and this are the only sources I can find so far which would suggest WP:GNG coverage of the term; the second and third sources is lacking, but it's very possible I'm missing valid Dutch sources because of a language barrier. There's an op-ed which I can't access which may discuss the bridges, but the fact it shares a name with a number of bed and breakfasts and schools doesn't help the source search. For now, a weak keep on the assumption there's more Dutch language sources out there. SportingFlyer T· C 15:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
No, its not absurd, there were absolutely no references when I nominated this. Also, please cite the guideline that says if a topic has a wikipedia commons category than it must be notable (I haven't seen it). -- Rusf10 ( talk) 01:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Woefully inadequate Wikipedia:BEFORE. Not Wikipedia commons, but common sense, also considering https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoogholtje, https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwakel, https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heechhout, which speaks to the "strange that only small province would even use the term". Note the difference between 'legit' and 'notable'. Djflem ( talk) 07:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
This is typical of you. All you do is scream "BEFORE! BEFORE! BEFORE!" The article in its previous state, appeared to be a possible WP:HOAX. I've already explained above how my before search came up with nothing. Notice how the Dutch wikipedia article is is also unsourced, so no help there. The existence of an article in another language does not equal notability. That project may have different standards and without reliable secondary sources, it simply carries no weight.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 17:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
And who else is the network of culprits in the conspiracy to write & publish the Hoogholtje bridge article, the other than the creators & contributors of the Dutch articles, the photographers and contributors to Wikimedia Commons, and the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (the Dutch equivilant to the National Registers of Historic Places? If, as you stated, you are "not even sure if the term is legit" or "it just seems strange that only small province would even use the term" to you, do better BEFORE nominating. Djflem ( talk) 20:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • further comment Perhaps it is frustrating but while there is at least some sourcing for kwakel (or kwakelbrug), there still is none for the name on this page. And frankly, at this point kwakel could just as well be created as a redirect to a short section in footbridge, and this one still deleted. I do see that the NL article is actually (if not well) sourced, but I also see that the two commons categories are completely disjoint; moreover, the picture in this article is in neither. Finally, I would like to observe that it is lame to criticize someone in the English WP for not searching on a name that is utterly different from that in the article. Mangoe ( talk) 00:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • As I'm sure you know, notability is different from the state of sourcing in the article - I'd fix it up but have no confidence in doing it right due to the language barrier. But this wasn't an easy/straightforward search, and as I've said before I really don't agree with those who say the BEFORE was inadequate. SportingFlyer T· C 19:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 07:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep The nomination smell like a severe geographical bias, with a negative opinion about the Netherlands and its provinces. With that, the nomination not by far neutral. Back to the issue: this type of bridge is used in multiple provinces in the Netherlands: Groningen, Friesland, North Holland (including Amsterdam) and South Holland (including Rotterdam and The Hague) and Overijssel ( Giethoorn). The article is well sourced. The Banner  talk 21:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The nomination smell like a severe geographical bias, with a negative opinion about the Netherlands and its provinces. With that, the nomination not by far neutral. Wow, nobody can fool you. I didn't think anyone else would pick up on it, but yes I nominated this solely because I hate the Netherlands. What a stupid statement!-- Rusf10 ( talk) 04:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank for confirming your bias. But could you please discuss the content without personal attacks? The Banner  talk 09:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep this nomination originally seems to be prompted by a lack of understanding of the Dutch language and Dutch history/culture. In The Netherlands there are several languages and dialects. Therefor local cultural or landscape oriented aspects can have a different name, depending on the region. For example: the landscape element Kwelder. Where I live people will probably know what I'm talking about when I say "Kwelder". I've I would travel south for about half an hour, people would probably have no idea what I'm talking about because kwelders are called schorren there. Another example, if I would travel as less as 5 kilometres, just to visit my family, people will notice instantly that I'm not from around there. So much can language differ in the Netherlands. Thus it doesn't seem strange to me that this term is only used in Groningen, a province in which the Low Saxon also is an official language. The language the term Hoogholtje originates from. A language not used in any of the other provinces.
Regarding the sources. There is no reason that independent and reliable sources cannot be found. However, you'll have to do a literature search in Dutch and probably visit a one of the major libraries in the Netherlands. The history of Groningen is well researched. Just because a Google search didn’t provide any useful results, it doesn’t mean that no sources can be found. Unfortunately COVID makes it hard for me to visit the Royal Library, but I surely hope that difficulties visiting libraries due to a pandemic isn’t a reason to dismiss an article.
Should pages about similar bridges be merged? No, architecture, local cultural significance or origin may differ significantly. Natuur12 ( talk) 22:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
It isn't good enough to say "no reason that [...] sources cannot be found"; they need to be found, and nobody has found any as has looked, as far as has been said here.
As far as the language variants are concerned: first, I am aware of the issue, but second, this being the English WP, we need what they are called in English. So far nobody has given a source which uses the current name, and the other name at least has some sources, but when all is said and done, it takes no more than one sentence (maybe two) and a picture to describe these things, which is why I'm thinking a section in footbridge is more appropriate, Mangoe ( talk) 22:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Now, we're getting somewhere. At least understand why it was so hard to find sources for this. There are multiple names for the same bridge and now I understand why. But that's not my fault. If the article was written properly in the first place, the alternate names would have been there. They were nowhere to be found. What I came across was a poorly written unsourced article that has been that way for about 15 years. It did not provide the necessary information that I would need to research the topic without being a Dutch language expert. I know its fun to WP:BlameTheNominator (somebody should write a essay about that), but this is the fault of the person who created this article and the rest of you who haven't cared about the article for the past 15 years, but now have this fake outrage because someone dared to nominate a really poor-quality article for deletion.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 04:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
You can not expect Dutch people to provide sources in English, just because you guys can not handle that. But is is your right to withdraw the nomination now it is an okay article. The Banner  talk 09:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I can expect them to provide sources though. There were no sources in any language. WP:V is a policy, can you handle that?-- Rusf10 ( talk) 15:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
You really failed to see the 10 sources in the article? The Banner  talk 15:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
But beside that, see here:
  1. Het Noorden in woord en beeld, jrg 4, 1928-1929, no 1, 01-01-1928, 1928
  2. Het Noorden in woord en beeld, jrg 1, 1925-1926, no 41, 08-01-1926, 1926
  3. Over de bodem van de Dollard, 2011
  4. Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 1929
  5. Trouw, 1994
There is much more on https://www.delpher.nl/ that can give evidence of the existence of this type of bridge. All can be found under the simple search string "Hoogholtje" (and not the incorrect name "Hoogholtje bridge"). The Banner  talk 16:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. This is what the article looked like when I nominated it. There were no sources.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 21:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
And how hard is it for you to understand that there are NOW plenty sources. It is not illegal for a subject to have sources in another language. The Banner  talk 09:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

First, a small correction. Groningen isn't the only province where they speak Low Saxon, they speak a unique variety named Gronings.

The only problem with the original article is the lack of citations. It’s factual correct. Length isn’t a criteria for quality. Regardless, citations are provided and the article contains some more info. The term Hoogholtje is still used. ( example).

Can more reliable sources be found? Yes. Example 1, example 2, example 3. Still, for A-grade sources I'll have to visit the Royal Library, but COVID complicates things. Natuur12 ( talk) 16:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Union of Estonian Architects

Union of Estonian Architects (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Concerns had been previously raised through a tag that notability of said subject is unclear as per WP:SIGCOV. Relies on primary sources as of now. No multiple secondary sources to make a pass of WP:SIGCOV. The Estonian version of said article isn't much of a help in verifying notability either. nearlyevil 665 06:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 06:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 06:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Organisations of this type are usually notable, and there are probably good enough coverage in Estonian sources. Geschichte ( talk) 10:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. There are very good, independent, non-primary sources for the association. Sirp has a very detailed history of the association. Eesti Rahvusringhääling has a feature on Andro Mänd elected as the president of the organization. The Museum of Estonian Architecture profiles the earliest members of the Union of Estonian Architects. There was a book edited by Krista Karu (EAL 1921-1996, published by Solnessi Arhitektuurikirjastus. ISBN: 9985902416) detailing the history of the organization published in 1999. There are countless articles (easily found) about the association giving awards. Articles about the anniversary of the founding here, listings for projects and exhibits and competitions and awards here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. There seems to be either some sort of bias or lackadaisical approach to some of these nominations. WP:BEFORE would have been useful. ExRat ( talk) 11:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Mut Mee Guesthouse

Mut Mee Guesthouse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Tagged as possibly not notable since 2009. There are two references. One is to a Guardian article on tourism in Thailand which mentions the guesthouse and quotes the owner. The other is to an Amazon page for a book which is apparently partly set at the guesthouse - neither book nor author have a Wiki article. The Dead Boys (novel) by Richard Calder (writer) is also said in the article to be set partly at this guesthouse, although that is not referenced in this article and not mentioned in the article on the book. There are references in listings in guidebooks but I cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Tacyarg ( talk) 18:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg ( talk) 18:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: It has professional reviews on travel-guide websites like Travelfish [5], and I suppose would be in most guidebooks, but online coverage seems otherwise lacking. Given its history I suspect it might have been the subject of some press coverage back in the 90s, but that's hard to find out. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 21:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    • You mean before it opened in 2000, that is 21 years ago. Or is the article just plain wrong? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
      • The article said "has been in operation for 21 years" at its earliest version in 2009, so it would have opened in 1988 (as confirmed by their about page [6]). There are quite a few Google Books results that are 1990s guidebooks. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 05:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • delete I would expect coverage outside travel guides, unless the latter was quite extensive. Sounds like a nice enough place, but not notable. Mangoe ( talk) 00:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Church of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist (Smila, Ukraine)

Church of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist (Smila, Ukraine) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Modern church (2008) which does not seem to have anything going for it in terms of historical or cultural significance, or any kind of solid coverage indicative of such. Not seeing a basis for an article here.

(where do we sort buildings / churches? Feel free to move this to a better AfD category)

Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Second ref is an unadorned press release. Third ref is a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL public notice - "a new public building has been opened". Both of these are very much trivial coverage and do nothing for notability. - First ref has more potential as a feature on the origin of the church. So, one good source so far by my count. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 14:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough the second and third are not earth-shattering. But they appear to be legitimate local news, produced by real writers and studios. Second one is a video news item at an event. Smila has a church that was built by its priest over many years. An unusual feat of vernacular architecture these days. Is that encyclopedic? — Michael  Z. 02:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd say yes, IF it receives the requisite amount of coverage. Don't think a single item of usable length would normally be considered sufficient. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as it does have some significant reliable sources coverage but the main reason is that the remains of a notable holy martyr Vladimir Bogoyavlensky have been interred here which gives the church historic significance in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 01:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes GNG as it does have some significant reliable sources as per above. Articuno appears ( talk) 09:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Two short local pieces and a press release are not significant coverage. ♠ PMC(talk) 13:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ashley yoursmile! 04:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Madis Eek

Madis Eek (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fail of WP:GNG. No indication of any significant contributions to his field. nearlyevil 665 09:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 09:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda ( talk) 22:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. has an article (although minimally sourced) on Estonian Wikipedia. There may be significant non-English sources. Mukedits ( talk) 20:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. He has many indepth articles from non-primary sources written about him in the Estonian press: in a cursory look I found a lengthy article in Äripäev (a daily Estonian financial newspaper), mentions in the largest daily newspaper in Estonia Postimees ( here), another major newspaper Eesti Päevaleht ( here and here), article about one of his buildings in Eesti Ekspress here, a lengthy article ( here) for Eesti Rahvusringhääling (Estonian Public Broadcasting). He also has an entry at the Estonian Association of Architects ( here). That was all from about 3 minutes of searching. Should always do a WP:BEFORE. ExRat ( talk) 12:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Reply: Thank you for the research. As you have presented many sources I have gone forward and made a source assessment table to determine the merits of your keep vote. Based on the analysis, I still stand by my delete vote. Also, I don't believe there is consensus that an entry in the Union of Estonian Architects is a precursor to notability.
Source assessment table:
(This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.)
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.aripaev.ee/uudised/2010/09/12/madis-eek-klaverihelide-saatel-arhitektiks No This is an interview piece Yes Reliable newspaper Yes Significant coverage, as this is an interview No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/64924046/elanikud-protesteerivad-kultuurikula-rajamise-vastu Yes Independent coverage Yes Nothing to suggest it isn't reliable No This is an article covering the planned construction of a bus terminal and commercial building, with just a passing mention of the subject, mentioned in a single paragraph No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/70277321/klaasmunaga-konkursil Yes Major newspaper in Estonia Yes Nothing to suggest lack of reliability No Article is behind a paywall. Article title's translated reads "In a glass egg competition" and the first visible paragraph suggests nothing about significant coverage of the subject. Looks like an article covering an architect competition, rather than the subject. No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/64924046/elanikud-protesteerivad-kultuurikula-rajamise-vastu Yes Major newspaper in Estonia Yes Nothing to suggest lack of reliability No The article is entirely about residents' protest against the construction of a cultural village. The subject is mentioned once in the article, as one of the authors of the planned project. Therefore, a trivial mention of the subject. No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/64924046/elanikud-protesteerivad-kultuurikula-rajamise-vastu Yes Newspaper in Estonia Yes Nothing to suggest lack of reliability No The article is actually a review of one of the buildings co-designed by the subject. WP:NOTINHERITED. Only a passing mention of the subject, mentioned once in the article. No
https://www.err.ee/924038/pealtnagija-arhitektid-avastasid-riigihangete-e-lahenduses-tobeda-vea Yes English version of Estonia's Public Broadcaster Yes Reliable No Not significant. The article is dedicated to a failure in procurement and the subject was the one contracted to do it. It also includes bits of interviews from the subject. No
Table created using {{ source assess table}}

nearlyevil 665 12:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. There is also a very indepth, three page article about Eek specifically in the September 2010 Oma Maja edition of Äripäev (pages 16–19, here). Also, disagree with a few of your assessments. The Eesti Päevaleht article: WP:NOTINHERITED can't be used, as the subject is the co-architect. The subject didn't "inherit" notabilty from someone else's sole abilities; the subject is the co-creator of the building. The Eesti Rahvusringhääling article: the article is indepth. The fact that it quotes the subject in small "bits of interviews"...well, it would be sort of remiss as a journalistic piece if it didn't. Not sure how that is a strike against it. Agree that several sources are passing mentions, but they are mostly about his work or buildings. ExRat ( talk) 14:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment: An architect is not notable by the mere merit of having co-created a building which passes notability as per WP:NOTINHERITED. None of the sources covering those buildings cover the subject to a non-trivial degree. The three page article you mentioned is nearly entirely an interview piece, hence not an independent source, hence not a source for determining notability. nearlyevil 665 15:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Comment. The Äripäev article is absolutely not "nearly entirely an interview piece" whatsoever. It is a lengthy, featured profile of the subject, directly. He is quoted in the article. It is not merely some "interview" piece. This is an interview piece. This is not. You also still seem to not understand WP:NOTINHERITED: "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects." A co-creator, equally in partnership with another person, is not "inheriting" the notabilty of their associate when the weight of an article is given to both equally (or, minimally, as you suggest). I also never claimed that the subject was "notable by the mere merit of having co-created a building." It is the totality of his work. ExRat ( talk) 20:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Comment: Miscommunication here. WP:NOTINHERITED was used in reference to the articles covering his buildings. You linked several articles that have significant coverage of his buildings (look at my source assessment table) and my point was he is not notable just because buildings he designed have received coverage. And the Äripäev article is absolutely an interview piece. The entire article is 688 words long, with 472 words (68% of entire article) of direct citations by the subject. The remaining 32% of content is either regurgitation of said citations or a lead-up of what is to be said by the subject. This is, for all interests and purposes, a pure interview piece and not an independent article. nearlyevil 665 05:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further participation and discussion based on the presented sources may help generate consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH21 talk 17:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment by nominator: For making further discussion easier I have expanded on my previous source assessment table to include both the references presented here as part of the keep vote as well as the original references present in the article:
Source assessment table:
(This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.)
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.aripaev.ee/uudised/2010/09/12/madis-eek-klaverihelide-saatel-arhitektiks No This is an interview piece Yes Reliable newspaper Yes Significant coverage, as this is an interview No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/64924046/elanikud-protesteerivad-kultuurikula-rajamise-vastu Yes Independent coverage Yes Nothing to suggest it isn't reliable No This is an article covering the planned construction of a bus terminal and commercial building, with just a passing mention of the subject, mentioned in a single paragraph No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/70277321/klaasmunaga-konkursil Yes Major newspaper in Estonia Yes Nothing to suggest lack of reliability No Article is behind a paywall. Article title's translated reads "In a glass egg competition" and the first visible paragraph suggests nothing about significant coverage of the subject. Looks like an article covering an architect competition, rather than the subject. No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/64924046/elanikud-protesteerivad-kultuurikula-rajamise-vastu Yes Major newspaper in Estonia Yes Nothing to suggest lack of reliability No The article is entirely about residents' protest against the construction of a cultural village. The subject is mentioned once in the article, as one of the authors of the planned project. Therefore, a trivial mention of the subject. No
https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/64924046/elanikud-protesteerivad-kultuurikula-rajamise-vastu Yes Newspaper in Estonia Yes Nothing to suggest lack of reliability No The article is actually a review of one of the buildings co-designed by the subject. WP:NOTINHERITED. Only a passing mention of the subject, mentioned once in the article. No
https://www.err.ee/924038/pealtnagija-arhitektid-avastasid-riigihangete-e-lahenduses-tobeda-vea Yes English version of Estonia's Public Broadcaster Yes Reliable No Not significant. The article is dedicated to a failure in procurement and the subject was the one contracted to do it. It also includes bits of interviews from the subject. No
http://www.arhliit.ee/koosseis/liikmed/liige/313/ Yes Independent union Yes Reliable No Membership of said Union is not a precursor to notability. In fact I'd even question the notability of said Union. No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110720124835/http://www.eekmutso.ee/est/cv_madis_est.html ? This is just a cv page ? This is just a cv page No This is just a cv page with about three sentences about the subject No
https://static-pdf.aripaev.ee/XjH653_dwk-5kyJoXM5aFjomTzU.pdf No This is an interview piece No Interview piece Yes The entire article is 688 words long, with 472 words (68% of entire article) of direct citations by the subject. The remaining 32% of content is either regurgitation of said citations or a lead-up of what is to be said by the subject. No
Table created using {{ source assess table}}

nearlyevil 665 07:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford ( talk) 20:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Alberta Association of Architects

Alberta Association of Architects (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Unsourced since 2006. WP:BEFORE reveals a decent number of search results, but they are almost all passing mentions. The best sources I could find from clicking on about 20 newspaper articles and books were this PR piece and this one paragraph in an encyclopedia. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. The article is only sourced to the subject's own website. We cannot hae such things on Wikipedia. Zelnhelmthegreat ( talk) 20:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    Zelnhelmthegreat I feel that is an argument in bad faith, this is an official organization that accredits architects. There is no question about whether the organization exists or not. Clearly the existence of the organization is not OR, it is basically a government organization. The question is rather whether it is notable per WP:ORG. -- hroest 21:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • comment we have articles about many other such organizations which are all quasi-government organizations and are all weak on sourcing. Point in case Ontario Association of Architects and Ordre des architectes du Québec. If they were private organizations we would probably delete them, but here they have quasi-government status since they regulate the profession and are probably notable due to that. -- hroest 21:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Other stuff exists is not an argument to keep an article. We need to have adequate indepdent sourcing on this organization. There are huge numbers of articles in Wikipedia that do not meet our inclusion criteria, their presence is no argument to keep other such organizations having articles. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 21:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 12:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Miranda Veljačić

Miranda Veljačić (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Definitely accomplished, but not enough in-depth coverage to show she passes WP:GNG. Searches turned up dozens of mentions of her, like those which are currently in the article, not of which are in-depth. Onel5969 TT me 14:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Onel5969 most of them are in depth. Some of them are direct quotes. -- Zblace ( talk) 13:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Logs: 2021-03 G12
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 23:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Granted, no single source meets the "significant coverage" criterion of the WP:GNG, but taken together they do provide coverage sufficient for a Start to C class article and do indicate accomplishments which would normally be roughly enough to consider the subject notable in her field. GregorB ( talk) 18:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    @ GregorB thank you for being against @ Onel5969's formalistic and deletionist approach and more for holistic understanding of a regulation. I am somewhat confused by no "significant coverage"... I hope you do not expect a single interview of all of life-achivements from mid-career practicing professional. -- Zblace ( talk) 05:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Significant work has been done to this article since it was first put up for deletion. Several publications with links to the original source have been added which demonstrate in-depth coverage as first requested by onel5969. The practitioner has presented in the context of the Venice Biennale which is arguable one of the most well-known art platforms worldwide and therefore should fall under the notability guidelines. -- Rosa(SiC) ( talk) 09:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame)

Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Was AfD'd back in 2013, and nothing really has changed since then. While it is part of a historic district, it itself is not on the NRHP. Currently the vast majority of the article is primary sourced, and there is not enough in-depth coverage to pass GNG. Part of several articles which have all be recreated after AfD. I'll be sending them all to AfD, but did not feel bundling was appropriate, since all should be evaluated individually. Onel5969 TT me 14:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

But all highly related AFDs should be linked. And it is generally a waste of time to run many similar AFDs at the same time...test the waters with one or two and drop your quest if you don't get agreement.
To AFD partipants and potential closers, please see, at least (and please notify all of us of any more):
-- Doncram ( talk) 04:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep The residential college is in itself notable. The building, built in 1897, is over a hundred years old and hosted the Manual Labor School of Notre Dame founded in 1843. It was the first residential hall to host women on the campus of the University of Notre Dame. Throughout its long history it has hosted several notable people and events. It was also part of the United States Naval Reserve Midshipmen's School program during Worl War II. The building was listed in the National Register of Historic Places with reference number ID78000053 in 1978. Its long history is well sourced, as well as it role in the university's history. Eccekevin ( talk) 17:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to University of Notre Dame residence halls: Article does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. None of the above keep votes have been able to show this has SIGCOV or any reason based in guidelines why this should be a stand alone article. The building does not inherit notability from the area it is in or subjects it is associated with. The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument above is invalid. The keep claims have to resort to OTHERSTUFF exists or inherited notability claims which shows clearly there is no SIGCOV or support in guidelines. This is one of 31 halls, by the above reasoning all these buildings would be notable, even though they do not have SIGCOV. If IS RS with SIGCOV can be found, the subject is best covered in the target.  //  Timothy ::  talk  09:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The page is full of sources, most of them independent from the Hall, that provide good SIGCOV. And the fact alone that is is on the National Register of Historic Places makes it notable, especially given the age of the building. [1] Eccekevin ( talk) 09:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ ""National Register of Historic Places Inventory" (PDF). Retrieved 16 March 2021.
  • Note to closer about canvasing: Unfortunately Eccekevin is canvasing for participation in this AfD. [7], [8].  //  Timothy ::  talk  10:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I am not canvassing, I am reaching out to project members for help collecting sources in line with WP:APPNOTE. Eccekevin ( talk) 10:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Note to closer This is incorrect, I never reached out for anyone's vote, in accordance with WP:APPNOTE and WP:CANVASS. Eccekevin ( talk) 18:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, the same as with the other 3 dorms that were AfD'd, these dorms are part of the NRHP district that is historical in every sense of the word. There are other sources used, in addition to the NRHP, including the State of Indiana, the NPS, several Catholic publications, and various books, etc. This campus is one of the most visited sites in the state of Indiana, because of its various venues (football stadium included). I don't think that this article should be deleted. Funandtrvl ( talk) 18:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Funandtrvl, can you point to the sources that provide direct and indepth coverage of the subject required by SIGCOV? It is obvious not everything in a historic district is notable, that this is a popular part of campus does not mean it is notable.  //  Timothy ::  talk  18:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Just some of them are the 1917 Irish Standard article written about its construction, history, and dedication [1],1947 South Bend Tribune article profiling the hall for its 50th anniversary [2], the 1954 South Bend Tribune article describing it and its history [3], its architectural and historical decription in Recreation in the United States: National Historic Landmark Theme Study [4], and its history and description in Arthur Hope's book about the university [5], and not to mention the many many articles profiling it, its architecture, history, and traditions in depth from sources connected to Notre Dame (although many of them independent and with no connection to the Hall), including its extensive treatment in Thomas Blantz's The University of Notre Dame : a history (2020) [6]. Also, it is listed as Historic Structure in the NRHP listing. Hence, it definitely meets WP:BUILD. Eccekevin ( talk) 03:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "New Badin Hall named after first priest in America". The Irish Standard. 22 December 1917. p. 1.
  2. ^ "ND residence to mark 50th anniversary". South Bend Tribune. 18 May 1947. p. 13.
  3. ^ Carrico, Patrick (12 May 1954). "Famed Bog distinguished Badin Hall at Notre Dame". South Bend Tribune. p. 24.
  4. ^ Charleton, James H. (1986). Recreation in the United States: National Historic Landmark Theme Study. National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
  5. ^ Hope, Arthur J. (1978). Notre Dame, one hundred years. South Bend, Ind.: Icarus Press. ISBN  9780896515000.
  6. ^ Blantz, Thomas E. (2020). The University of Notre Dame : a history. Notre Dame, Indiana. ISBN  978-0-268-10824-3. OCLC  1182853710.
  • Note to closer: The above editor was canvassed for there vote [9].

 //  Timothy ::  talk  18:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Note to closer, I was not canvassed., according to WP:APPNOTE, I'm a concerned editor who is a member of the article's WikiProject, and has expertise in the subject. Funandtrvl ( talk) 16:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC) --Also, I have taken note that in the one AfD where my opinion matched the person saying that I was canvassed ( Keenan Hall), that he did not point out after my commentary that I was canvassed. But, in each article that I didn't agree with him, he did point that out. (Badin, Carroll and Alumni). Funandtrvl ( talk) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Everything listed as NRHP is notable per Wikipedia:Inherent_notability#Inherent_Wikipedia-style_notability. Eccekevin ( talk) 18:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
This is in a historic district; not everything in a historic district is notable and that essay is a personal opinion, not a Wikipedia guideline.  //  Timothy ::  talk  18:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure, but Badin Hall is explicitly listed as a contributing property and has its own description and listing in the NRHP, hence it does aquire inherent notability. Eccekevin ( talk) 18:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The essay you are citing is a personal opinion, one that contradicts actual guidelines. Citing an say to set aside something as fundamental as WP:N is not a valid argument. //  Timothy ::  talk  19:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
As pointed out by another editor, WP:NBUILD is an acutal guideline, and Badin Hall falls under it since it is listed as historic structure by the NRHP. Eccekevin ( talk) 21:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Very good and interesting article, same as 20 similar ones dealing with University of Notre Dame residence halls. It's not a "personal opinion", as mentioned above. Note: I was NOT canvassed. -- Silve rije 01:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Silverije, Looks like this is your first time at AfD [10], you picked an interesting time and place to start.  //  Timothy ::  talk  01:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
really? and how is this relevant to the afd? Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment, WP:NBUILD, that is not an essay or personal opinion, states "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable.", so if it is listed, and with the references present in the article (not necessarily having to be WP:SIGCOV), it is wikinotable and this afd is a waste of time. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, and no one voting delete has yet given a reason for which NBUILD does not apply. Eccekevin ( talk) 22:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep passes GNG as notable historic building w/ refs Djflem ( talk) 18:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-sourced article on an historic building. I can't see any useful reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep notable, historic building. Rjensen ( talk) 23:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after a "redirect" closure per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 8.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to University of Notre Dame residence halls. Not an especially notable crusty building KidAdSPEAK 20:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep passes GNG as notable historic building and has a unique history in multiple roles. Rjensen ( talk) 21:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Strike duplicate !vote. Onel5969 TT me 21:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per the cogent reasoning of DGG at the DRV this misses GNG. -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment The issue with that reasoning is that Badin Hall is explicitly listed as historic structure by the NHRP, it is not just geographically part of a district, as the example DGG made (of a house in a district, but not explicitly mentioned by the NRHP). Hence, there is a substantial difference and in this case and WP:NBUILD applies, since this structure has "protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable." I have not seen any reasoning by which NBUILD does not apply here.
In addition, the reasoning that local news sources like the South Bend Tribune (which has two features profiles of Badin hall [1] [2]) should be discounted is not found in any Wikipedia policy, but is arbitrary. It is independent, reliable, and the fact that is is based in a town close to where Badin Hall is doesn't take away from neither of those things. Eccekevin ( talk) 22:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Eccekevin ( talk) 22:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Eccekevin ( talk) 22:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep While I do not feel that every place within a NRHP historic district, I'm satisfied that in this case there are enough sources for GNG. MB 22:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect, to University of Notre Dame residence halls Alex-h ( talk) 11:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Meet general notability guidelines and is a historic building in a historic district. Star7924 ( talk) 14:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper ( talk) 03:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Architecture Proposed deletions

Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

Other pages


Arts proposed deletions

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

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

  1. ^ Carrico, Patrick (12 May 1954). "Famed Bog distinguished Badin Hall at Notre Dame". South Bend Tribune. p. 24.
  2. ^ "ND residence to mark 50th anniversary". South Bend Tribune. 18 May 1947. p. 13.