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

Queer Glass

Queer Glass (  | 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)

Originally sent for deletion in 8 June 2019. Rationale by User:Bearcat stated as: Original research article which tries to invent an art genre. This is referenced primarily to sources which verify the existence of glass artists who identify as LGBTQ, alongside a couple of sources that tangentially verify stray facts like the definition of "LGBTQ" and the broad overall history of LGBTQ art — but not a single source here actually discusses or contextualizes "queer glass" as a recognized or defined genre of art in its own right. As always, "people who happen to be both X and Y" do not automatically always constitute their own distinct genre: art critics would have to identify and analyze "queer glass" as a thing before a Wikipedia article about it became appropriate scope_creep Talk 06:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone ( talk) 12:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - I wasn't sure about the simple re-stating of a 2 year old deletion nomination but I went and did some digging and, honestly, I don't think the availability of sources has substantially improved. Or really changed at all. There are still sources that incidentally put the two words together in the context of unusual glass, unusual spectacles, the queer "lens", glass blowers that are pro-LGBT (but not exclusively about making glass products for LGBT people), and other such things. But really nothing that supports the suggestion that there is some specific art movement or school or concept or trend that expresses queer-ness through the medium of glass. I'm sure that there are some artists who might do so, and even some who have dedicated particular pieces or collections to an LGBT cause or concept. But that's not the same thing as the subject here Its difficult, then, to conclude that this is anything other than synthesis. Indeed, the only place this idea exists is here on Wikipedia, and that's obviously not appropriate. The article itself has been filled to the brim with "references" (most of which make no mention of the term, let alone give it significant coverage) but relies heavily on this blog, the publishers of which also publish a local "newsmagazine". The blog post in question actually references the first deletion discussion here on Wikipedia, and then republishes an essay (of sorts) from the person our new article credits with having invented the term. Its the worst kind of self-referential circular sourcing. Stlwart 111 13:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - I see two new museum sources added to this article, including (arguably) the best known glass museum in the world in Tacoma, which according to the reference hosted a discussion on the term "Queer Art" and what it means. The fact that the planet's leading art museum did this, is clear evidence to the most casual reader that this term exists in the glass world and not just in Wikipedia as noted above. As for the "cicular sourcing" I do not what's so odd about the museum lecture being done by the artist credited with inventing the term? It would be like Clement Greenberg discussing the Color Field genre of painting. I do not find it difficult at all to conclude the existance of the term, and suspect that since a few museums have now used it in ehibitions, that outweighs any WIkipedia's editors personal opinion of the validity of the term. -- JaxChix ( talk) 18:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
No, they hosted a talk by Tim Tate (self-credited with having created the term); a talk he named after the term he created. Within the announcement for that talk, the term itself is hyperlinked (in place of an explanation of the term) and directs to a Wikipedia mirror with a copy of our own article and its explanation that Tate created the term. Even if we accept that Tate created the term (an assertion that, as far as I can tell, cannot even be verified) we still need for the term to have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Otherwise, the only source available to support this Wikipedia article, is this Wikipedia article. Stlwart 111 00:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - Stalwart111 makes a very compelling case here. This could be a case of WP:TOOSOON and maybe better sources treating this subject more fully will emerge in the future. At the moment the basis of the article seems to basically be Tate - so could we not merge any of the good stuff from this article into his article? I also really don't see the utility of a list of non-notable "Queer Glass" Artists. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Normally a worthwhile suggestion, Vlad, but in this case even that would be circular. Tate first thanks someone for using the term (in passing) in this blog post in 2019 and, in that post, then ascribes the term some broader meaning or use. But to define what "Queer Glass" is supposed to mean, he cites the original Wikipedia article itself. That blog post did not exist until this article existed (in its original form), not the other way around. We would be using a blog post that cites a previous iteration of this Wikipedia article as a source for this Wikipedia article. Merging the content elsewhere doesn't change that very significant problem, unfortunately. Stlwart 111 03:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Point taken. So my understanding is this article was mainly formed on the back of a singular LBTQI+ Glass art exhibition and then became one of those weird cases of a WP article influencing its own subject. This probably happens more than we realise. No way this meets GNG. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 04:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it might have been a single throwaway line in one particular introductory speech at one specific art exhibition, but yes, you're exactly right. And I suspect you're exactly right about it happening more often than we realise. Stlwart 111 08:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I've just reminded myself that WP:WINARS exists... I love that acronym. Stlwart 111 08:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Circular referencing at its worst. Fails WP:GNG when the bad sources are discounted. Mlb96 ( talk) 04:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, with no prejudice against a future merge proposal if the article proves unexpandable. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 09:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Dreamtime Village

Dreamtime Village (  | 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)

I don't think this is a very notable place. The only RS discussing this place is the one NYT article linked here and the Isthmus article. wizzito | say hello! 05:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 05:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 05:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 05:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone ( talk) 15:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Netherzone ( talk) 15:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge to West Lima, Wisconsin. I buy that it's not independently notable, but since there are some RS, it can be merged. ♠ PMC(talk) 07:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it is independently notable, now that the New York Times reference has been added. Eastmain ( talkcontribs) 10:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is really more of a collective/collaborative social experiment than a geographic settlement. (Maybe the categorization needs adjusting?) I have improved the article, adding several citations SIGCOV in reliable sources. Also added a section on the publishing house they ran/run. They are the subject of several in-depth articles in newspapers and journals, and their mail art publications are in the collections of the Smithsonian Archives of American Art, MoMA, and the Minneapolis Museum of Art. The article meets notability of GNG, and can be further improved. It should be retained in the encyclopedia. Netherzone ( talk) 15:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Pedimental sculptures in Canada

Pedimental sculptures in Canada (  | 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)

The topic of this list doesn't seem to have been the topic of attention in reliable sources as a group. If no one outside Wikipedia has been interested enough in pedimental sculptures in Canada to write at some length about it, then we shouldn't be the first to do so. Many of these aren't individually notable either (e.g. this or this or many others), making this a novel grouping of non notable features of notable buildings. We wouldn't (I hope) make similar list for e.g. "Buildings using the Corinthian order in Canada" or "Domed buildings of Canada", there is no reason to treat these differently. Fram ( talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone ( talk) 14:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Netherzone ( talk) 14:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure this is notable, it reads more like a list than an article. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Moderately sloped roof allows for "Equal justice under law", on US Supreme Court building: Lady Liberty, enthroned
Architecture of the Supreme Court of Canada building is better for shedding heavy snowfall.
  • Keep. This is a well constructed article ("list" if you prefer) with a lot of detailed information in it that some folks have spent a lot of time and effort on. Architectural sculpture is a niche study with quite a few adherents and we are frequently looking for this sort of list. Also when you nominate something for deletion you should put a link to here on the article's talk page. Carptrash ( talk) 16:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    • "Also when you nominate something for deletion you should put a link to here on the article's talk page." That's news to me. There is a massive link at the article page, there is no need to add another link at the talk page (where your comments are borderline canvassing though). None of your keep arguments are really relevant, articles are not kept or deleted because they are well organised or not, or because they are the work of one person or of a group of people. Fram ( talk) 17:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry that I missed you link on the article page. The other part has to do with respect for the effort that other serious, long time editors have put into this article. That might not be covered in any policy but should (opinion) always be taken into account by fellow editors. Carptrash ( talk) 23:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment hello @ Fram: -- could you please link the policy behind your main argument, that the scope of any wikipedia article must reflect the scope of an article found in a reliable source? I've looked and cannot find. thank you -- Lockley ( talk) 16:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    • The very start of WP:GNG? "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when [...] significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". Because no sources address the article topic directly, the writers need to make a WP:SYNTH creation. Fram ( talk) 17:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
      • In good faith I'm trying to see your reasoning. Coupla issues with my article, sure, but specifically about your challenge of the scope of the article because there is no precedent for it. I understand how the very start of GNG relates to articles about simple nouns, people places & things. I do not understand how it relates to articles with a wider scope than that -- summaries and lists such as this one. For instance let's take Inauguration of the Dutch monarch. Is that article toast if we can't point to a reliable outside source with that same exact scope? If that source is silent on the medals involved, would we have to delete the medals section? That article links to a historical summary article called Coronations in antiquity, whose scope doesn't seem to be reflected in any outside source that I could spot. By your logic, would we properly delete that one too? -- Lockley ( talk) 18:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Hi Lockley - the guidelines we need to look at are WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. Unless there are sources discussing this topic as a group (as oppose to the individual items within the list) then I don't believe it meets the guidelines and falls into WP:SYNTH. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 04:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. A pedimental sculpture is a thing, and Wikipedia can have an article on the topic. Which can include a worldwide list of notable examples, or the worldwide list can be split out into one or more list-articles, e.g. one for US, one for Canada, etc. But there does not have to be a separate article on the topic, and the worldwide list can be titled "Pedimental sculptures" or "List of pedimental sculptures" and focus more on the list of examples than upon narrow definition of the topic and narrow coverage from, say, some textbook or manual on how to design an impressive building such as a courthouse. Note: Not every pedimental sculpture in Canada would be listed; list-item-notability standards are up to the editors at an article. But editors of Pedimental sculptures in the United States (including me) worked out a standard that includes the nationally significant figurative sculptures in pediments of the U.S. Supreme Court building, etc., and that excludes local, residential or commercial ones which are simply laurels and flowers and scrolls and appear to be non-original.-- Doncram ( talk) 19:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Which of the sculptures in the list under discussion is "nationally significant" (the sculpture, not the building!). Fram ( talk) 07:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
BTW User:Lockley's very first version of this list-article was already impressive (thank you, Lockley!), and BoringHistoryGuy has further developed it. -- Doncram ( talk) 19:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Is this in Canada?
Domed building in Kingston, Ontario
  • Keep, a new and already fine page, and objections have been explained well by the editors working on the page. Randy Kryn ( talk) 19:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: A domed building is a thing, too, and there certainly can be a list-article of notable examples world-wide. Should it be List of domes or List of domed buildings? -- Doncram ( talk) 20:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC) P.S. Oh, there is a worldwide list already, with France and some other areas broken out. Domes in Canada (currently a redlink), could be redirected to a Canada section in worldwide List of domes, or created as a separate article. -- Doncram ( talk) 20:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems to meet GNG - though could do with some more, independent, references. Nfitz ( talk) 01:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    • How does this meet GNG? I don't see any sources in the article about "Pedimental sculptures in Canada", and most of the sources are extremely passing mentions of the pediment (often not even mentioning the sculpture) or don't mention the pediment at all. Fram ( talk) 07:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Most, sure - not surprising out there. But there are some more detailed GNG sources out there like this. Nfitz ( talk) 23:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article fails WP:LISTN and seems to be the result of WP:SYNTH. None of the sources used in the article discuss pedimental sculptures in Canada as a group and a quick WP:BEFORE does not reveal any sources. While the sourcing is ok for the most part for the sculptures in the list, WP:LISTN is clear that these should be discussed as a group otherwise this is just WP:OR. I would urge the above editors to review the list notability guidelines and revise their votes - arguments above seem to just be WP:WHATABOUT rather than providing sources. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 04:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
No, that's just wrong. Pedimental sculptures (not specific to Canada I think) are discussed in sources such as Webb and Matlack (cited in both U.S. and Canada list-articles):
  • Price, Matlack, "The Problem of the Pediment," The Architectural Forum, July 1925, Volume XLIII, Number 1, pp. 1.
  • Webb, Pamela A., Hellenistic Architectural Sculpture: Figural Motifs in Western Anatolia and the Aegean Islands, The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, 1996 pp.23-25
So a list of notable examples is acceptable. And it is fine to split Canada out of a world-wide list, or for it to exist in advance of a truly comprehensive worldwide list being created. We don't need separate sources reviewing pedimental sculptures of Canada alone. Just like there are 1,000 or so list-articles of places listed on the U.S. National Register, broken out mostly by county; we don't need or want separate sources discussing each subcollection. -- Doncram ( talk) 04:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Neither source give any reference to pedimental sculptures in Canada and it is wrong to use them to justify this article's notability. See below:
  • Price, Matlack, "The Problem of the Pediment," - This makes no mention at all of Canadian architecture/sculpture or Canada more widely. Some American examples are given in this (obscure) article though. It's open access so editors can check for themselves.
  • Webb, Pamela A., Hellenistic Architectural Sculpture: Figural Motifs in Western Anatolia and the Aegean Islands - Unless I am mistaken, Western Anatolia and the Argean Islands are not part of Canada. I cannot find any references to Canada or Canadian architecture/sculpture in the book with a search ( see here). So I think looking at the topic of the book and the search results I can safely say that this source in no way talks about pedimental sculptures in Canada.
Of course these sources are fine to give background in the context of an already notable subject. But no sources that I can find talk about this as a group and without this it is just not notable. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 07:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Too bad that not one of the examples so far is actually notable of course. The buildings are, but the pedimental sculptures get at best a passing mention, that's it. You'll probably be able to find one or two which have received attention. Wikipedia isn't the place to create a "truly comprehensive worldwide list" of non notable individual features of buildings. Comprehensive lists are good for topics where most entries are individually notable, or where the group (not the concept, the group) is notable. A chonological list of people who held a certain notable function will often include both notable and non-notable people, fine. But a list of non-notable examples (the article here) of a group which hasn't received attention as a group subject (pedimental sculptures in Canada) either, on the basis that an even less restrictive topic (pedimental sculptures) is notable, is stretching the limits of spinoff far beyond what WP:NOTINHERITED allows. Fram ( talk) 07:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Note some recent activity ( [1] [2] [3] [4]) by Doncram come very close to inappropriate canvassing in my opinion. In the interests of transparency and for noting by the closer I have included this message here. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 07:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Not surprised by this from Doncram, I have to say. This is blatant canvassing (and at a project which is hardly relevant here). Of course, Doncram was first canvassed (together with some others like Randy Kryn) by BoringHistoryGuy [5], so this AfD is rather lopsided now. Fram ( talk) 08:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with Fram and others, there isn't sufficient evidence that pedimental sculpture is a notable grouping at all ( pedimental sculpture is a redlink), let alone within Canada specifically. I'm far from an expert in this topic but I was not able to locate a single example of an individually specifically notable pedimental sculpture in Canada (meaning that the sculpture itself is notable, not just that it's on a notable building). The closest I came was this writeup on architectural features of the Manitoba Legislative Building, but the writeup (and our article) treat these appropriately as elements of the notable building, not notable artistic elements in and of themselves. Rather than being a selective list of notable topics, this is an indiscriminate list of features selected by its curator, very few of which have any information about them on Wikipedia at all - only five of the 26 entries in the list even have the artist noted. Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 13:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - mostly per Vladimir.copic who quite rightly points out that WP:LISTN is the appropriate standard here: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been". I can't find anything approaching a reliable source that gives significant coverage to this grouping of things, as a grouping, as defined by the article. I could accept an argument that a comprehensive article at Pedimental sculpture would be justification for splitting "examples" out into lists, and that "examples by country" would be a logical grouping thereafter. And on that basis, I'd be fine with an effort to rename this list to that title (combined with Pedimental sculptures in the United States) so that an article can be developed there. Even a combined Pedimental sculpture in North America, if this concept has strong cultural ties to the continent generally (again, in reliable sources). Otherwise, these seem like lists looking for an parent article. Stlwart 111 14:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Well I suppose the next thing to do is to start a Pediment sculpture or Pedimental sculpture]] article so that Canada can be a spinoff from that. Carptrash ( talk) 17:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nom has invented a policy to argue for deletion. Specifically it's an argument that goes "Wikipedia shouldn't be the first to make a certain grouping of subjects" and demands a source for the scope of the article as a whole, to prove its overall notability with outside coverage. That language appears nowhere in WP:GNG or WP:LISTN. In fact the latter directly contradicts that: "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists." The nom's AfD argument is not supported by policy.
I get it, there's a big valid issue about how to make sure the scope of list articles and summary articles is appropriate for wikipedia. But this pretended policy that demands a cited precedent for any grouping is a terrible idea for wikipedia for 4 or 5 practical & philosophical reasons. I'm happy it's not real.
The nom has asserted this non-existent policy before, in this similar AfD about a year ago, giving this reason for deletion: "the [subject] has not been a separate subject of reliable sources, and is as such a random choice (a random intersection of characteristics) for an article." That caused a long tangled discussion. The AfD nomination is itself illogical -- "unverifiable" is way different than "random". The closest actual policy the deletion advocates could site was WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which does not apply to that article or this article. Finally the nom couldn't the position and the AfD was eventually withdrawn. This one should be too.
As to my article, I'd prefer to keep it. Notability is only valid issue I see. I believe it passes WP:LISTN in letter and spirit, because that bit of shiny doctrine reads "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been". These pediment carvings are a subset of public art, which is widely covered & recognized as a valid encyclopedia topic. Is it true that pedimental sculpture doesn't exist? Could we do a better job explaining why pedimental sculptures are significant, expensive, complicated, worth attention as public art and fine art? Does public art have patchy coverage overall in wikipedia? Is wikipedia incomplete? Yes to all those questions. Those are arguments to keep. -- Lockley ( talk) 18:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it is quite inaccurate and inappropriate to say the nom invented a policy. In your !vote you have quoted the aspect of the guidelines that we cannot get around: " only that the grouping or set in general has been". Until keep voters provide some sources that treat this topic as a group, it just patently fails on this count. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 23:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd rather invite all voters to look at the two paragraphs in Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists to decide for themselves. It's eight sentences. It says stand-alone list articles must be notable. Sure. And one way to prove notability is to point to an independent reliable source for such a grouping. The second para begins, "There is no present consensus for.. what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists." This AfD is fundamentally out of whack with that wording because it INSISTS on a citation as the only thing that can establish notability. -- Lockley ( talk) 03:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Another sentence in that guideline paragraph states: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." That recognized exception should be the gold standard to save this well-written, inclusive, and informative page. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious that this list does not fulfil any of these purposes - especially given the number of "unknown" "tbd" and red-linked entries and the single similarly-tiled article (see Stalwart111's comments). Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it fulfills all of them. So we can maybe agree to good faith disagree. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I think this argument comes down to WP:WHATABOUT. The relevant policy is WP:LISTN or at least WP:GNG which no keep voters seem to address. We could justify a "Pedimental sculptures in..." article for every country using this logic. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 23:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken, I found that article too (and referenced it above). The issue is that it is the only other such article. Routinely acceptable? I'm not sure one single example establishes a routine. In fact, it's not even accurate to pluralise "parallel articles" as there is only one. Stlwart 111 00:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: But I don't think we should follow @Vlad's argument for every country, as I dare say there might well be some countries that do not have any pedimental sculptures to speak of. The article reflects the strong contribution made by Canada, which was accomplished without looting other countries, as happened with the Elgin Marbles! Leutha ( talk) 00:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Leutha - can you point to any sources discussing the strong contribution made by Canada to pedimental sculpture? I can't seem to find any. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 01:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your diligence in searching for such references. However contributions to a discussion like this do not require the provision of references as this not a wikipedia article, so you will no doubt understand if I do not join you in your endeavours. Leutha ( talk) 13:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
By "strong contribution" I suspect that Leutha means the number of these pediments found, though once we get going on Australia we will know for sure. France & Great Britain might even outscore the US, much less Canada. Carptrash ( talk) 07:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The number of these pediments maybe impressive, but the strength of the contribution is also shown by the nature of the associated buildings. It may well turn out that Paris alone outstrips the Anglophone contributions. I look forward to seeing these pages. Leutha ( talk) 13:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Leutha: Well I'm pretty sure you are not going to see Paris or London, at least from me, until this mess is decided. Carptrash ( talk) 18:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Despite all the "keep" votes (some reasonably formulated, some needlessly confrontational, some canvassed), we still have the same situation:
    • This is a non-notable grouping of non-notable sculptures
    • WP:GNG makes it clear that list topics need to have the same notability as other articles
    • WP:LISTN is slightly more "yes but no but yes", but starts with the same notability requirement and ends with "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." No arguments have been proposed why this list would be an exception to that rule
    • All keep arguments seem to boil down to "I like it", "otherstuffexists", and "it isn't 100% explicitly prohibited completely at every junction".
    • It would be a lot better if an article was created about an actually notable topic, Neoclassical architecture in Canada, where many of these buildings would make fine examples, and where different aspects of neoclassical architecture, like pediments and their sculptures, can briefly be discussed. That would be a notable, helpful, acceptable article. This list though belongs on Fandom or similar sites. Fram ( talk) 07:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
      • The article fulfills all three of WP:LISTPURP, which is linked in WP:LISTN's criteria "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". The page fits the Information criteria: "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists", the Navigation criteria: "Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia", and the Development criteria: "Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of Wikipedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written." These criteria, met and enhanced by the page in question (which has been undergoing improvement since this AfD started and has taken its place, for readers interested in art and sculpture, as one of the major Canadian art pages), shows that Keep points of reasoning go far beyond "I like it". Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
        • If this is "one of the major Canadian art pages", then that's a very bleak picture of the other articles on Canadian art. This list doesn't serve a navigational purpose, i doesn't link different articles on pedimental sculptures, it links articles on buildings based on a non-notable element in them. Navigation based on non-defining elements is not what navigational lists should be used for. I have no idea what "development purpose" the list serves either, a list of non-notable elements will not lead to articles. Which leaves you only with "informational", which is a truism. A list which isn't informational is just gibberish. Furthermore, WP:LISTPURP is part of the manual of style, not a policy or guideline on notability and what is or isn't acceptable as an article topic on enwiki. Fram ( talk) 11:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
          • Since I say it fits all three of the asked for criteria and you say it doesn't fit any we obviously have different points of view. Would like to point out that some of the most renowned pediments in North America don't have separate pages (pediments on the U.S. Supreme Court Building, the U.S. Capitol Building, and on the Jefferson Memorial come to mind), so the future is bright for editors who want to work on Wikipedia pediment pages, and both the U.S. and Canadian pediment lists provide plenty of opportunities and ideas to work on - a purpose which fulfills the criteria described above. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
            • Without evidence that some of these pediments are in itself notable, no, nothing in this list provides any opportunity. That entries on a different list which isn't up for deletion here may or may not be notable in themselves is of no interest here. As there is no actual evidence for your many claims, they should be dismissed out of hand. Fram ( talk) 12:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
              • While you say my accurately-quoting-from-guidelines claims "should be dismissed out of hand" I say they should be given a hand, maybe by this guy. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Perfectly valid, notable subject for a WP article. 14GTR ( talk) 09:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
                • Apart from the fact that you quote from a manual of style, not a notability guideline: it isn't enough to quote them, what you need to show is how they apply to the article at AfD. Something like "These criteria, met and enhanced by the page in question" may sound clever, but is in fact empty (how does an article "enhance" these criteria?), and doesn't address any of the objections. Fram ( talk) 14:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep this list/article. That individual items may or may not be notable is not an argument for deletion; most of the buildings will be, and many of their articles will cover this sculpture. Johnbod ( talk) 15:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - based on the arguments above by Randy Kryn, Johnbod and others. This list is a useful addition for the encyclopedia's readership. If this article is not kept, Fram has made a very good suggestion to create an article on Neoclassical architecture in Canada and this list can be a subsection of that. Netherzone ( talk) 15:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. The buildings of which the sculptures are a part are notable, most of them anyway, but the sculptures in their pediments are not notable by themselves. This list is too "niche". I can't even find a list of sculptures in Canada (although we do have Category:Sculptures in Canada) so why should the subset of Pedimental sculptures be listed in this way? PK T(alk) 16:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. As Stalwart111 said, "these seem like lists looking for a parent article." I can imagine breaking these out of an article on Pedimental sculpture once it became unwieldy, but that article doesn't exist, and there's no evidence that Canada has a unique or notable tradition of pedimental sculpture. pburka ( talk) 22:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would like to see the body of the article expanded with more detail about sculptures that are of special cultural or artistic importance. The list section works well. BoringHistoryGuy ( talk) 23:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - for all of the keep !votes here, we really haven't seen any policy-based reasoning and most of them boil down to "it's nice", "it's useful", or "it's interesting". Those things can all absolutely be true but they don't help this list meet our inclusion criteria. And a closing admin could justifiably dismiss those arguments and delete this list anyway. But there is a solution being suggested - an alternative to deletion - which is that a parent article be created to maintain the content (the hard work of editors). By way of an analogy, this is like creating a log-book for a car's service history before buying the car. It's like defining the nutritional qualities of a cake you haven't baked. It's like listing your favourite characters for a show you haven't watched. There's so much passion and interest here. Can I please urge those passionate about this topic: buy the car; bake the cake; watch the show. Accept this was created in the wrong format and write the article. I hate seeing work deleted because the editors involved couldn't see the wood for the trees. *frustrated editor noises* Stlwart 111 02:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The article, User:Vladimir.copic is Pediment, which was created in 2003. I'll add an obvious redirect. Nfitz ( talk) 04:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The target of that redirect ( pediment) offers no information on pedimental sculpture, only on the notable architectural element, the pediment itself. Perhaps this list should be refocused into a List of pediments in Canada? Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 15:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Eh? The 2nd sentence is "The tympanum, the triangular area within the pediment, is often decorated with relief sculpture", and several styles of sculpture are shown and captioned in the pictures. It's the correct redirect, and any expansion on the subject should start there. Johnbod ( talk) 15:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Why does the first image illustrating this article show something completely different (i.e. sculptures above a pediment)? Is the term pedimental sculpture well-understood in the field of art history, and does it include both reliefs and over-pediment sculptures? pburka ( talk) 16:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, it's not ideal as a lead pic, though striking. The caption does say "Over-pedimental figure with horses...". Pedimental sculpture is a well-understood term in art history, though the more precise "tympanum relief" or "tympanum sculptures" are probably more common. Not all are reliefs - the most famous of all, the Parthenon Marbles are mostly free-standing, I think with some relief work behind. Johnbod ( talk) 16:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry I am going to have to disagree with you on this score, @Vladimir.copic. A better analogy would be Canadian jazz, which does have an article, which can be accessed from the "Infobox music genre" located on the Jazz page you link to. As regards "Pedimental sculptures in Bhutan", I am not sure you'll find a single one! However, we know from this excellent article that there are a significant number of such pedimental sculptures and we can find out more about them. Leutha ( talk) 15:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Whilst I appreciate your point, @Johnbod, I've been bold and started Pedimental sculpture, including material about the development of interest in precisely the Parthenon Marbles which developed in the nineteenth century. Leutha ( talk) 17:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Outstanding work Leutha! That being the case, Merge to Pedimental sculpture until such time as separate national lists can be justified by the length of that article. Stlwart 111 01:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Have you looked at the Pedimental sculptures in Canada page lately? It has been worked on continuously since this discussion started and is now a full, on-topic, quality page. "Until such time" has long passed, both the Canada and United States pediment pages certainly pass muster as Wikipedia worthy first-class articles. Randy Kryn ( talk) 02:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I have. Have you looked at that new article? The article that should have been created in the first place and into which a lot of that content should be merged? The issue remains that lists (of this form) are the solution to a problem; a problem that in this case simply doesn't exist. In fact, until the creation of that article, there wasn't even a place for that problem to have existed, such that it could have existed and required a solution. As I said earlier, the format choice here was unfortunate, but I'm genuinely keen for the content to be retained. Stlwart 111 06:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The opening line is instructive: "Pedimental sculptures in Canada are sculptures within the frame of a pediment on the exterior of a building." but just in Canada? There is nothing, other that the title, to suggest they are treated any differently in Canada, or that a specific list of Canadian examples needs to be separated from any general list of examples (should we require a list at all). And, and I can't stress this enough, this is a subject you'll only find here on Wikipedia because it is a synthesis of ideas that hasn't been the focus of significant study elsewhere. Pedimental sculpture exists, and there are some examples in Canada. It is original research to suggest than some commonality or uniqueness sets Canadian examples apart in a manner that requires specific coverage. Why not Pedimental sculptures in Canada in marble, or Pedimental sculptures in Canada in the context of court houses, or Pedimental sculptures in Canada created during the multiple Prime Ministerial terms of John A. Macdonald...? There is as much information available for me to sythesize a list together for each of those titles... Stlwart 111 06:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Of course I've looked at it, a good worldwide scope page which will get much better. That nice and fully worked-up separate list pages on Canada's pediment sculpture and United States pediment sculptures exist augments it and the topic. It's about time that pediment sculptures got their due on Wikipedia, so let's not go backwards and remove one of the good ones. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know how to interpret the very novel, "It's about time that pediment sculptures got their due on Wikipedia" beyond stating the obvious; that we don't owe coverage to any subject, especially one that doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. I've actively suggested and supported an alternative to deletion for an article that in no way meets our inclusion criteria, but supporters seem keen to chant WP:ILIKEIT instead. *shrugs*. Stlwart 111 02:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep this falls well within WP:LISTPURP, and is capable of satisfying WP:CSC. There may be a better way to organise the content of this topic and group these as sections on pages with a broader scope, but that's a matter for a merge discussion or rfc. Doesn't look like there's a WP:SALAT issue to me. For the record, yes I was brought here by one of those non-neutral notices, I'm not a fan of those, but I stand by my !vote nonetheless and don't believe the wording of the notice affected my decision making here. 81.177.27.61 ( talk) 16:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment (already !voted above) - I applaud the work done on pedimental sculpture which did not exist at the start of this discussion, and the material added to the article under discussion which handily demonstrates that there is one notable pedimental sculpture that is located in Canada. However, that addition illustrates the delete argument: that one sculpture is notable in isolation because of the folklore associated with it; its notability does not in any way derive from being in Canada. Many of the keep voters have described good general reasons why such a list would be kept, such as that pedimental sculptures in Canada are an important topic in art history or art criticism or architectural heritage, that there are many examples of specifically notable pedimental sculptures located in Canada, and/or that there are widespread sources discussing the topic of pedimental sculpture as it pertains to Canada specifically, and yes those are all very good guidelines, however no sources have been provided demonstrating that any of these arguments are true. Pedimental sculpture is notable, and Canada is notable, but "pedimental sculptures in Canada" is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Why is it non-notable? Because no evidence has been provided that it is notable, other than Wikipedians insisting that it is, and that is not how WP:GNG works. Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 16:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @ PEIsquirrel: Thanks for your thoughtful comment, I can't speak for everyone, but in my case I think this is much like the Listed buildings in Rivington example in WP:CSC, where WP:LISTPURP is satisfied even though we have neither WP:SIGCOV on the topic itself, nor or most entries blue-linked. I only see a potential problem if it later turns out to be difficult to adjudicate inclusion criteria, or if the list grows beyond the stipulated 32k of text. While you reference cross-categorizations, WP:LISTN specifically states There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists so that's hardly a strong deletion arguement. It continues Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability (emphasis mine). Even if those issues I mentioned do arise that is still not a reason for deletion since there is content suitable for merging elsewhere ( WP:ATD) in which case WP:NNC will apply and any concerns over issues finding SIGCOV of pedimental sculpture as it pertains to Canada specifically would be purely academic. Cheers, 81.177.27.61 ( talk) 19:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Listed buildings in Rivington is not an apt comparison. As that featured article describes, Rivington is a nationally recognized heritage conservation area, and the buildings described therein are also individually listed on a national historic register; several have standalone articles and there are very likely to be academic sources for the ones that don't. This list of pedimental sculptures in Canada is just some art, with no indication that any of it is notable on its own. The buildings may be but as the linked CRHP pages describe, they are notable for heritage value in urban development and preservation, and examples of specific architectural styles, not for their artwork (or not significantly versus other factors). "There is no present consensus" does not mean we ignore the WP:GNG, and if this list fulfills some "recognized informational, navigation, or development purpose" then please provide any evidence at all that it is recognized, beyond your insistence that it is. Wikipedia is not a guidebook for art tourism and not a directory of indiscriminate information. As for WP:ATD, some (not very much) of the information here could be reorganized into lists of heritage architecture based on the CRHP's listings (e.g. the Ancienne-Douane could be included in a list of buildings by notable architect John Ostell, or a list of notable examples of Palladian architecture, if those existed, as those are the notable elements described on its CRHP page, not its pediment artwork). But "some of it could be reused" is not an argument for keeping the non-notable list. Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 12:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
        • @ PEIsquirrel: Thanks for your continued engagement. no indication that any of it is notable on its own well you yourself have conceded at least one is, as to whether others are notable, probably some are, is that unsupported assertion, well so is your assertion that everything in Rivngton is notable, but it's unlikely that there are no others. But actually I think that's all academic/irrelevant, since GNG must be read in concert with LISTN as both are part of the same guideline. You assert that it is not recognised except WP:LISTN does not leave that term out there, hanging undefined. Instead it links directly to WP:LISTPURP, and this certainly falls within the ambit of informational purpose. You assert indiscriminate, predicated on your own analysis, but that's not how that works or else many afds would just have a chorus of people saying, I think it's indiscriminate and others saying I think it isn't with no standard by which to judge, but in fact we have guidelines that reify that policy in practice and in this case that guideline is WP:CSC. As of right now this passes the 3rd criterion Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group so it is not indiscriminate under our own guidelines (there is less than 32k of text). Finally you've conceded that there is useful information that could be organized and reused. If that is the case deletion is already off the table per policy, that may mean merging, but that can be dealt without outside of afd. Which is to say presumably you would be ok with a result of Keep with no prejudice against a speedy merge discussion, and I'd be fine with that as well, so our positions aren't too far apart, and I'd have to do some more research and think that one over. Of course that's just my opinion and I know your speaking to the group as a whole, likely Doncram will have a differrent perspective along with many others. Cheers, 81.177.27.61 ( talk) 19:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep but Needs work I think the topic is within the notable topic of architecture in Canada. The article should focus on notable examples as sections, and keep a pruned list of examples of type. As it is, it is mostly just a long list of examples without notable characteristics fully documented. There is no way a list like this could be comprehensive, so it should focus on notable examples. For example, I would think all of the buildings on the registry of historic places should be kept. Sure, it is a niche work, but that should not matter. Alaney2k ( talk) 15:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Without knowing anything about Canadian heritage listings, I'd be rather surprised if any of the buildings on the list are not listed. For example neither the list nor the article say that the Alberta Legislature Building (top of the list) is listed, but I bet it is. Johnbod ( talk) 15:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
      • And here it is on the Alberta list. Johnbod ( talk) 15:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
        • The listing mentions the building's pediment several times but doesn't say anything about a sculpture within that pediment. The building is certainly notable, but is the pedimental sculpture? pburka ( talk) 15:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
          • I take "monumental pediment" to mean a pediment with monumental sculpture in it. There are several references to the level of ornamental sculpture on and in thebuilding. It isn't a very precise architectural description - it doesn't even say how many bays the facades have, normally the first thing any such description says. In any case it isn't necessary to demonstate the items in the list are individually notable. Johnbod ( talk) 19:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The topic of pedimental sculpture itself is widely written on going back to Ancient Greece and Rome. As a broader art subject its of interest to writers on art and architecture. Likewise Canadian art is also a topic of interest within sources and research. In this case we are overlapping/intersecting two broader notable areas of art in what is a reasonable intersection. Likewise much of the architecture within the list is notable with its own stand alone articles, so this is a reasonable navigation list. Any unsourced content can be challenged and removed, but given that many of these are notable buildings there is likely to be RS to verify this article (much of it offline in books and other publications on the art and architecture of these buildings). 4meter4 ( talk) 16:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • KEEP The only claimed policy based reason to delete I see above is WP:NLIST which says "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists." Nope - the guideline just doesn't agree with the claim. Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Medrar for contemporary art

Medrar for contemporary art (  | 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)

I'm genuinely not sure how the previous AFD was not closed as "delete" given there was no opposition to the nomination. I also see that nothing has changed since then; there are barely any sources in the text, there is nothing in the search engines to indicate it is any more notable than it was six years ago, and less than ten edits to improve it since the last discussion. Primefac ( talk) 11:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Primefac ( talk) 11:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Primefac ( talk) 11:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Primefac ( talk) 11:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete coverage I see is limited to event listings and one about its move, nothing to meet WP:ORG. Any Arabic speakers willing to chime in to see if there's adequate non-English sourcing? And concur, that last one should have been treated as a PROD. Star Mississippi 12:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per Star Mississippi and nom. 4meter4 ( talk) 00:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 04:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is promotional piece rather than an encyclopedia article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:18, 11 September 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

The Uptown Residences

The Uptown Residences (  | 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)

Tall condo tower in a city with many. No notable architecture merit and no mention in the media. Fails WP:NBUILD Alaney2k ( talk) 19:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete ... we could say WP:ITEXISTS but it exists to serve no real purpose here. Not without references. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 21:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Grand Harbour (Toronto)

Grand Harbour (Toronto) (  | 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)

Condominium towers in a city with many. Little or no discussion of the topic in media. Nothing substantive anyway. No architectural awards or merit that I could find. Fails WP:NBUILD Alaney2k ( talk) 18:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Harbour Plaza

Harbour Plaza (  | 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)

Building is not notable. While tall, it is not notable in a city with many tall buildings. Not discussed in any major way for its architecture or any notable characteristic. Does not pass WP:NBUILD Alaney2k ( talk) 18:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Our Lady of Guadalupe Church (Danbury, Connecticut)

Our Lady of Guadalupe Church (Danbury, Connecticut) (  | 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)

Like Notre Dame Church (Easton, Connecticut), since deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notre Dame Church (Easton, Connecticut), this church was mentioned but not discussed in a mega AfD that closed as keep, logistically. A BEFORE for this particular church shows no evidence of notability with coverage limited to event listings and nothing that would meet ORG. Not mentioned in the city nor in the diocese, so a redirect wouldn't be helpful or DUE given lack of other churches' presence. Star Mississippi 13:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 13:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 13:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 13:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I couldn't find anything towards WP:GNG, only directories, not independent stuff, and media coverage about sexual abuse by one the church's former priests (which is not in-depth coverage about the church itself). - Tristan Surtel ( talk) 14:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tristan - no evidence of notability. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 16:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's some evidence of notability, owing to detailed coverage from multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Those articles are definitely not significant coverage about the church as GNG requires. The first few are about sexual abuse by a former priest (the only thing those articles tell about the church is that it is located on "Golden Hill Road in Danbury" and that the Rev. Jaime Marin-Cardona has been a priest there), so nothing in-depth about the church there, and in the last two articles the church is only mentioned in a single sentence as one of a number of examples of churches with increasing attendance. - Tristan Surtel ( talk) 08:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge with Danbury, Connecticut or Delete, in that order of preference. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 01:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge -- There is nothing in the article to show that this is not a NN local church. Mikehawk's list of references in the local press establish its existence but not its notability. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Pedimental sculptures in Canada

Pedimental sculptures in Canada (  | 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)

The topic of this list doesn't seem to have been the topic of attention in reliable sources as a group. If no one outside Wikipedia has been interested enough in pedimental sculptures in Canada to write at some length about it, then we shouldn't be the first to do so. Many of these aren't individually notable either (e.g. this or this or many others), making this a novel grouping of non notable features of notable buildings. We wouldn't (I hope) make similar list for e.g. "Buildings using the Corinthian order in Canada" or "Domed buildings of Canada", there is no reason to treat these differently. Fram ( talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone ( talk) 14:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Netherzone ( talk) 14:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure this is notable, it reads more like a list than an article. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Moderately sloped roof allows for "Equal justice under law", on US Supreme Court building: Lady Liberty, enthroned
Architecture of the Supreme Court of Canada building is better for shedding heavy snowfall.
  • Keep. This is a well constructed article ("list" if you prefer) with a lot of detailed information in it that some folks have spent a lot of time and effort on. Architectural sculpture is a niche study with quite a few adherents and we are frequently looking for this sort of list. Also when you nominate something for deletion you should put a link to here on the article's talk page. Carptrash ( talk) 16:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    • "Also when you nominate something for deletion you should put a link to here on the article's talk page." That's news to me. There is a massive link at the article page, there is no need to add another link at the talk page (where your comments are borderline canvassing though). None of your keep arguments are really relevant, articles are not kept or deleted because they are well organised or not, or because they are the work of one person or of a group of people. Fram ( talk) 17:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry that I missed you link on the article page. The other part has to do with respect for the effort that other serious, long time editors have put into this article. That might not be covered in any policy but should (opinion) always be taken into account by fellow editors. Carptrash ( talk) 23:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment hello @ Fram: -- could you please link the policy behind your main argument, that the scope of any wikipedia article must reflect the scope of an article found in a reliable source? I've looked and cannot find. thank you -- Lockley ( talk) 16:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    • The very start of WP:GNG? "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when [...] significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". Because no sources address the article topic directly, the writers need to make a WP:SYNTH creation. Fram ( talk) 17:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
      • In good faith I'm trying to see your reasoning. Coupla issues with my article, sure, but specifically about your challenge of the scope of the article because there is no precedent for it. I understand how the very start of GNG relates to articles about simple nouns, people places & things. I do not understand how it relates to articles with a wider scope than that -- summaries and lists such as this one. For instance let's take Inauguration of the Dutch monarch. Is that article toast if we can't point to a reliable outside source with that same exact scope? If that source is silent on the medals involved, would we have to delete the medals section? That article links to a historical summary article called Coronations in antiquity, whose scope doesn't seem to be reflected in any outside source that I could spot. By your logic, would we properly delete that one too? -- Lockley ( talk) 18:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Hi Lockley - the guidelines we need to look at are WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. Unless there are sources discussing this topic as a group (as oppose to the individual items within the list) then I don't believe it meets the guidelines and falls into WP:SYNTH. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 04:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. A pedimental sculpture is a thing, and Wikipedia can have an article on the topic. Which can include a worldwide list of notable examples, or the worldwide list can be split out into one or more list-articles, e.g. one for US, one for Canada, etc. But there does not have to be a separate article on the topic, and the worldwide list can be titled "Pedimental sculptures" or "List of pedimental sculptures" and focus more on the list of examples than upon narrow definition of the topic and narrow coverage from, say, some textbook or manual on how to design an impressive building such as a courthouse. Note: Not every pedimental sculpture in Canada would be listed; list-item-notability standards are up to the editors at an article. But editors of Pedimental sculptures in the United States (including me) worked out a standard that includes the nationally significant figurative sculptures in pediments of the U.S. Supreme Court building, etc., and that excludes local, residential or commercial ones which are simply laurels and flowers and scrolls and appear to be non-original.-- Doncram ( talk) 19:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Which of the sculptures in the list under discussion is "nationally significant" (the sculpture, not the building!). Fram ( talk) 07:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
BTW User:Lockley's very first version of this list-article was already impressive (thank you, Lockley!), and BoringHistoryGuy has further developed it. -- Doncram ( talk) 19:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Is this in Canada?
Domed building in Kingston, Ontario
  • Keep, a new and already fine page, and objections have been explained well by the editors working on the page. Randy Kryn ( talk) 19:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: A domed building is a thing, too, and there certainly can be a list-article of notable examples world-wide. Should it be List of domes or List of domed buildings? -- Doncram ( talk) 20:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC) P.S. Oh, there is a worldwide list already, with France and some other areas broken out. Domes in Canada (currently a redlink), could be redirected to a Canada section in worldwide List of domes, or created as a separate article. -- Doncram ( talk) 20:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems to meet GNG - though could do with some more, independent, references. Nfitz ( talk) 01:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    • How does this meet GNG? I don't see any sources in the article about "Pedimental sculptures in Canada", and most of the sources are extremely passing mentions of the pediment (often not even mentioning the sculpture) or don't mention the pediment at all. Fram ( talk) 07:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Most, sure - not surprising out there. But there are some more detailed GNG sources out there like this. Nfitz ( talk) 23:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article fails WP:LISTN and seems to be the result of WP:SYNTH. None of the sources used in the article discuss pedimental sculptures in Canada as a group and a quick WP:BEFORE does not reveal any sources. While the sourcing is ok for the most part for the sculptures in the list, WP:LISTN is clear that these should be discussed as a group otherwise this is just WP:OR. I would urge the above editors to review the list notability guidelines and revise their votes - arguments above seem to just be WP:WHATABOUT rather than providing sources. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 04:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
No, that's just wrong. Pedimental sculptures (not specific to Canada I think) are discussed in sources such as Webb and Matlack (cited in both U.S. and Canada list-articles):
  • Price, Matlack, "The Problem of the Pediment," The Architectural Forum, July 1925, Volume XLIII, Number 1, pp. 1.
  • Webb, Pamela A., Hellenistic Architectural Sculpture: Figural Motifs in Western Anatolia and the Aegean Islands, The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, 1996 pp.23-25
So a list of notable examples is acceptable. And it is fine to split Canada out of a world-wide list, or for it to exist in advance of a truly comprehensive worldwide list being created. We don't need separate sources reviewing pedimental sculptures of Canada alone. Just like there are 1,000 or so list-articles of places listed on the U.S. National Register, broken out mostly by county; we don't need or want separate sources discussing each subcollection. -- Doncram ( talk) 04:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Neither source give any reference to pedimental sculptures in Canada and it is wrong to use them to justify this article's notability. See below:
  • Price, Matlack, "The Problem of the Pediment," - This makes no mention at all of Canadian architecture/sculpture or Canada more widely. Some American examples are given in this (obscure) article though. It's open access so editors can check for themselves.
  • Webb, Pamela A., Hellenistic Architectural Sculpture: Figural Motifs in Western Anatolia and the Aegean Islands - Unless I am mistaken, Western Anatolia and the Argean Islands are not part of Canada. I cannot find any references to Canada or Canadian architecture/sculpture in the book with a search ( see here). So I think looking at the topic of the book and the search results I can safely say that this source in no way talks about pedimental sculptures in Canada.
Of course these sources are fine to give background in the context of an already notable subject. But no sources that I can find talk about this as a group and without this it is just not notable. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 07:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Too bad that not one of the examples so far is actually notable of course. The buildings are, but the pedimental sculptures get at best a passing mention, that's it. You'll probably be able to find one or two which have received attention. Wikipedia isn't the place to create a "truly comprehensive worldwide list" of non notable individual features of buildings. Comprehensive lists are good for topics where most entries are individually notable, or where the group (not the concept, the group) is notable. A chonological list of people who held a certain notable function will often include both notable and non-notable people, fine. But a list of non-notable examples (the article here) of a group which hasn't received attention as a group subject (pedimental sculptures in Canada) either, on the basis that an even less restrictive topic (pedimental sculptures) is notable, is stretching the limits of spinoff far beyond what WP:NOTINHERITED allows. Fram ( talk) 07:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Note some recent activity ( [6] [7] [8] [9]) by Doncram come very close to inappropriate canvassing in my opinion. In the interests of transparency and for noting by the closer I have included this message here. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 07:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Not surprised by this from Doncram, I have to say. This is blatant canvassing (and at a project which is hardly relevant here). Of course, Doncram was first canvassed (together with some others like Randy Kryn) by BoringHistoryGuy [10], so this AfD is rather lopsided now. Fram ( talk) 08:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with Fram and others, there isn't sufficient evidence that pedimental sculpture is a notable grouping at all ( pedimental sculpture is a redlink), let alone within Canada specifically. I'm far from an expert in this topic but I was not able to locate a single example of an individually specifically notable pedimental sculpture in Canada (meaning that the sculpture itself is notable, not just that it's on a notable building). The closest I came was this writeup on architectural features of the Manitoba Legislative Building, but the writeup (and our article) treat these appropriately as elements of the notable building, not notable artistic elements in and of themselves. Rather than being a selective list of notable topics, this is an indiscriminate list of features selected by its curator, very few of which have any information about them on Wikipedia at all - only five of the 26 entries in the list even have the artist noted. Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 13:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - mostly per Vladimir.copic who quite rightly points out that WP:LISTN is the appropriate standard here: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been". I can't find anything approaching a reliable source that gives significant coverage to this grouping of things, as a grouping, as defined by the article. I could accept an argument that a comprehensive article at Pedimental sculpture would be justification for splitting "examples" out into lists, and that "examples by country" would be a logical grouping thereafter. And on that basis, I'd be fine with an effort to rename this list to that title (combined with Pedimental sculptures in the United States) so that an article can be developed there. Even a combined Pedimental sculpture in North America, if this concept has strong cultural ties to the continent generally (again, in reliable sources). Otherwise, these seem like lists looking for an parent article. Stlwart 111 14:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Well I suppose the next thing to do is to start a Pediment sculpture or Pedimental sculpture]] article so that Canada can be a spinoff from that. Carptrash ( talk) 17:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nom has invented a policy to argue for deletion. Specifically it's an argument that goes "Wikipedia shouldn't be the first to make a certain grouping of subjects" and demands a source for the scope of the article as a whole, to prove its overall notability with outside coverage. That language appears nowhere in WP:GNG or WP:LISTN. In fact the latter directly contradicts that: "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists." The nom's AfD argument is not supported by policy.
I get it, there's a big valid issue about how to make sure the scope of list articles and summary articles is appropriate for wikipedia. But this pretended policy that demands a cited precedent for any grouping is a terrible idea for wikipedia for 4 or 5 practical & philosophical reasons. I'm happy it's not real.
The nom has asserted this non-existent policy before, in this similar AfD about a year ago, giving this reason for deletion: "the [subject] has not been a separate subject of reliable sources, and is as such a random choice (a random intersection of characteristics) for an article." That caused a long tangled discussion. The AfD nomination is itself illogical -- "unverifiable" is way different than "random". The closest actual policy the deletion advocates could site was WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which does not apply to that article or this article. Finally the nom couldn't the position and the AfD was eventually withdrawn. This one should be too.
As to my article, I'd prefer to keep it. Notability is only valid issue I see. I believe it passes WP:LISTN in letter and spirit, because that bit of shiny doctrine reads "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been". These pediment carvings are a subset of public art, which is widely covered & recognized as a valid encyclopedia topic. Is it true that pedimental sculpture doesn't exist? Could we do a better job explaining why pedimental sculptures are significant, expensive, complicated, worth attention as public art and fine art? Does public art have patchy coverage overall in wikipedia? Is wikipedia incomplete? Yes to all those questions. Those are arguments to keep. -- Lockley ( talk) 18:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it is quite inaccurate and inappropriate to say the nom invented a policy. In your !vote you have quoted the aspect of the guidelines that we cannot get around: " only that the grouping or set in general has been". Until keep voters provide some sources that treat this topic as a group, it just patently fails on this count. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 23:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd rather invite all voters to look at the two paragraphs in Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists to decide for themselves. It's eight sentences. It says stand-alone list articles must be notable. Sure. And one way to prove notability is to point to an independent reliable source for such a grouping. The second para begins, "There is no present consensus for.. what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists." This AfD is fundamentally out of whack with that wording because it INSISTS on a citation as the only thing that can establish notability. -- Lockley ( talk) 03:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Another sentence in that guideline paragraph states: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." That recognized exception should be the gold standard to save this well-written, inclusive, and informative page. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious that this list does not fulfil any of these purposes - especially given the number of "unknown" "tbd" and red-linked entries and the single similarly-tiled article (see Stalwart111's comments). Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it fulfills all of them. So we can maybe agree to good faith disagree. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I think this argument comes down to WP:WHATABOUT. The relevant policy is WP:LISTN or at least WP:GNG which no keep voters seem to address. We could justify a "Pedimental sculptures in..." article for every country using this logic. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 23:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken, I found that article too (and referenced it above). The issue is that it is the only other such article. Routinely acceptable? I'm not sure one single example establishes a routine. In fact, it's not even accurate to pluralise "parallel articles" as there is only one. Stlwart 111 00:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: But I don't think we should follow @Vlad's argument for every country, as I dare say there might well be some countries that do not have any pedimental sculptures to speak of. The article reflects the strong contribution made by Canada, which was accomplished without looting other countries, as happened with the Elgin Marbles! Leutha ( talk) 00:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Leutha - can you point to any sources discussing the strong contribution made by Canada to pedimental sculpture? I can't seem to find any. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 01:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your diligence in searching for such references. However contributions to a discussion like this do not require the provision of references as this not a wikipedia article, so you will no doubt understand if I do not join you in your endeavours. Leutha ( talk) 13:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
By "strong contribution" I suspect that Leutha means the number of these pediments found, though once we get going on Australia we will know for sure. France & Great Britain might even outscore the US, much less Canada. Carptrash ( talk) 07:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The number of these pediments maybe impressive, but the strength of the contribution is also shown by the nature of the associated buildings. It may well turn out that Paris alone outstrips the Anglophone contributions. I look forward to seeing these pages. Leutha ( talk) 13:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Leutha: Well I'm pretty sure you are not going to see Paris or London, at least from me, until this mess is decided. Carptrash ( talk) 18:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Despite all the "keep" votes (some reasonably formulated, some needlessly confrontational, some canvassed), we still have the same situation:
    • This is a non-notable grouping of non-notable sculptures
    • WP:GNG makes it clear that list topics need to have the same notability as other articles
    • WP:LISTN is slightly more "yes but no but yes", but starts with the same notability requirement and ends with "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." No arguments have been proposed why this list would be an exception to that rule
    • All keep arguments seem to boil down to "I like it", "otherstuffexists", and "it isn't 100% explicitly prohibited completely at every junction".
    • It would be a lot better if an article was created about an actually notable topic, Neoclassical architecture in Canada, where many of these buildings would make fine examples, and where different aspects of neoclassical architecture, like pediments and their sculptures, can briefly be discussed. That would be a notable, helpful, acceptable article. This list though belongs on Fandom or similar sites. Fram ( talk) 07:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
      • The article fulfills all three of WP:LISTPURP, which is linked in WP:LISTN's criteria "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". The page fits the Information criteria: "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists", the Navigation criteria: "Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia", and the Development criteria: "Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of Wikipedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written." These criteria, met and enhanced by the page in question (which has been undergoing improvement since this AfD started and has taken its place, for readers interested in art and sculpture, as one of the major Canadian art pages), shows that Keep points of reasoning go far beyond "I like it". Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
        • If this is "one of the major Canadian art pages", then that's a very bleak picture of the other articles on Canadian art. This list doesn't serve a navigational purpose, i doesn't link different articles on pedimental sculptures, it links articles on buildings based on a non-notable element in them. Navigation based on non-defining elements is not what navigational lists should be used for. I have no idea what "development purpose" the list serves either, a list of non-notable elements will not lead to articles. Which leaves you only with "informational", which is a truism. A list which isn't informational is just gibberish. Furthermore, WP:LISTPURP is part of the manual of style, not a policy or guideline on notability and what is or isn't acceptable as an article topic on enwiki. Fram ( talk) 11:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
          • Since I say it fits all three of the asked for criteria and you say it doesn't fit any we obviously have different points of view. Would like to point out that some of the most renowned pediments in North America don't have separate pages (pediments on the U.S. Supreme Court Building, the U.S. Capitol Building, and on the Jefferson Memorial come to mind), so the future is bright for editors who want to work on Wikipedia pediment pages, and both the U.S. and Canadian pediment lists provide plenty of opportunities and ideas to work on - a purpose which fulfills the criteria described above. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
            • Without evidence that some of these pediments are in itself notable, no, nothing in this list provides any opportunity. That entries on a different list which isn't up for deletion here may or may not be notable in themselves is of no interest here. As there is no actual evidence for your many claims, they should be dismissed out of hand. Fram ( talk) 12:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
              • While you say my accurately-quoting-from-guidelines claims "should be dismissed out of hand" I say they should be given a hand, maybe by this guy. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Perfectly valid, notable subject for a WP article. 14GTR ( talk) 09:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
                • Apart from the fact that you quote from a manual of style, not a notability guideline: it isn't enough to quote them, what you need to show is how they apply to the article at AfD. Something like "These criteria, met and enhanced by the page in question" may sound clever, but is in fact empty (how does an article "enhance" these criteria?), and doesn't address any of the objections. Fram ( talk) 14:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep this list/article. That individual items may or may not be notable is not an argument for deletion; most of the buildings will be, and many of their articles will cover this sculpture. Johnbod ( talk) 15:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - based on the arguments above by Randy Kryn, Johnbod and others. This list is a useful addition for the encyclopedia's readership. If this article is not kept, Fram has made a very good suggestion to create an article on Neoclassical architecture in Canada and this list can be a subsection of that. Netherzone ( talk) 15:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. The buildings of which the sculptures are a part are notable, most of them anyway, but the sculptures in their pediments are not notable by themselves. This list is too "niche". I can't even find a list of sculptures in Canada (although we do have Category:Sculptures in Canada) so why should the subset of Pedimental sculptures be listed in this way? PK T(alk) 16:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. As Stalwart111 said, "these seem like lists looking for a parent article." I can imagine breaking these out of an article on Pedimental sculpture once it became unwieldy, but that article doesn't exist, and there's no evidence that Canada has a unique or notable tradition of pedimental sculpture. pburka ( talk) 22:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would like to see the body of the article expanded with more detail about sculptures that are of special cultural or artistic importance. The list section works well. BoringHistoryGuy ( talk) 23:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - for all of the keep !votes here, we really haven't seen any policy-based reasoning and most of them boil down to "it's nice", "it's useful", or "it's interesting". Those things can all absolutely be true but they don't help this list meet our inclusion criteria. And a closing admin could justifiably dismiss those arguments and delete this list anyway. But there is a solution being suggested - an alternative to deletion - which is that a parent article be created to maintain the content (the hard work of editors). By way of an analogy, this is like creating a log-book for a car's service history before buying the car. It's like defining the nutritional qualities of a cake you haven't baked. It's like listing your favourite characters for a show you haven't watched. There's so much passion and interest here. Can I please urge those passionate about this topic: buy the car; bake the cake; watch the show. Accept this was created in the wrong format and write the article. I hate seeing work deleted because the editors involved couldn't see the wood for the trees. *frustrated editor noises* Stlwart 111 02:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The article, User:Vladimir.copic is Pediment, which was created in 2003. I'll add an obvious redirect. Nfitz ( talk) 04:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The target of that redirect ( pediment) offers no information on pedimental sculpture, only on the notable architectural element, the pediment itself. Perhaps this list should be refocused into a List of pediments in Canada? Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 15:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Eh? The 2nd sentence is "The tympanum, the triangular area within the pediment, is often decorated with relief sculpture", and several styles of sculpture are shown and captioned in the pictures. It's the correct redirect, and any expansion on the subject should start there. Johnbod ( talk) 15:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Why does the first image illustrating this article show something completely different (i.e. sculptures above a pediment)? Is the term pedimental sculpture well-understood in the field of art history, and does it include both reliefs and over-pediment sculptures? pburka ( talk) 16:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, it's not ideal as a lead pic, though striking. The caption does say "Over-pedimental figure with horses...". Pedimental sculpture is a well-understood term in art history, though the more precise "tympanum relief" or "tympanum sculptures" are probably more common. Not all are reliefs - the most famous of all, the Parthenon Marbles are mostly free-standing, I think with some relief work behind. Johnbod ( talk) 16:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry I am going to have to disagree with you on this score, @Vladimir.copic. A better analogy would be Canadian jazz, which does have an article, which can be accessed from the "Infobox music genre" located on the Jazz page you link to. As regards "Pedimental sculptures in Bhutan", I am not sure you'll find a single one! However, we know from this excellent article that there are a significant number of such pedimental sculptures and we can find out more about them. Leutha ( talk) 15:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Whilst I appreciate your point, @Johnbod, I've been bold and started Pedimental sculpture, including material about the development of interest in precisely the Parthenon Marbles which developed in the nineteenth century. Leutha ( talk) 17:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Outstanding work Leutha! That being the case, Merge to Pedimental sculpture until such time as separate national lists can be justified by the length of that article. Stlwart 111 01:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Have you looked at the Pedimental sculptures in Canada page lately? It has been worked on continuously since this discussion started and is now a full, on-topic, quality page. "Until such time" has long passed, both the Canada and United States pediment pages certainly pass muster as Wikipedia worthy first-class articles. Randy Kryn ( talk) 02:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I have. Have you looked at that new article? The article that should have been created in the first place and into which a lot of that content should be merged? The issue remains that lists (of this form) are the solution to a problem; a problem that in this case simply doesn't exist. In fact, until the creation of that article, there wasn't even a place for that problem to have existed, such that it could have existed and required a solution. As I said earlier, the format choice here was unfortunate, but I'm genuinely keen for the content to be retained. Stlwart 111 06:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The opening line is instructive: "Pedimental sculptures in Canada are sculptures within the frame of a pediment on the exterior of a building." but just in Canada? There is nothing, other that the title, to suggest they are treated any differently in Canada, or that a specific list of Canadian examples needs to be separated from any general list of examples (should we require a list at all). And, and I can't stress this enough, this is a subject you'll only find here on Wikipedia because it is a synthesis of ideas that hasn't been the focus of significant study elsewhere. Pedimental sculpture exists, and there are some examples in Canada. It is original research to suggest than some commonality or uniqueness sets Canadian examples apart in a manner that requires specific coverage. Why not Pedimental sculptures in Canada in marble, or Pedimental sculptures in Canada in the context of court houses, or Pedimental sculptures in Canada created during the multiple Prime Ministerial terms of John A. Macdonald...? There is as much information available for me to sythesize a list together for each of those titles... Stlwart 111 06:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Of course I've looked at it, a good worldwide scope page which will get much better. That nice and fully worked-up separate list pages on Canada's pediment sculpture and United States pediment sculptures exist augments it and the topic. It's about time that pediment sculptures got their due on Wikipedia, so let's not go backwards and remove one of the good ones. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know how to interpret the very novel, "It's about time that pediment sculptures got their due on Wikipedia" beyond stating the obvious; that we don't owe coverage to any subject, especially one that doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. I've actively suggested and supported an alternative to deletion for an article that in no way meets our inclusion criteria, but supporters seem keen to chant WP:ILIKEIT instead. *shrugs*. Stlwart 111 02:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep this falls well within WP:LISTPURP, and is capable of satisfying WP:CSC. There may be a better way to organise the content of this topic and group these as sections on pages with a broader scope, but that's a matter for a merge discussion or rfc. Doesn't look like there's a WP:SALAT issue to me. For the record, yes I was brought here by one of those non-neutral notices, I'm not a fan of those, but I stand by my !vote nonetheless and don't believe the wording of the notice affected my decision making here. 81.177.27.61 ( talk) 16:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment (already !voted above) - I applaud the work done on pedimental sculpture which did not exist at the start of this discussion, and the material added to the article under discussion which handily demonstrates that there is one notable pedimental sculpture that is located in Canada. However, that addition illustrates the delete argument: that one sculpture is notable in isolation because of the folklore associated with it; its notability does not in any way derive from being in Canada. Many of the keep voters have described good general reasons why such a list would be kept, such as that pedimental sculptures in Canada are an important topic in art history or art criticism or architectural heritage, that there are many examples of specifically notable pedimental sculptures located in Canada, and/or that there are widespread sources discussing the topic of pedimental sculpture as it pertains to Canada specifically, and yes those are all very good guidelines, however no sources have been provided demonstrating that any of these arguments are true. Pedimental sculpture is notable, and Canada is notable, but "pedimental sculptures in Canada" is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Why is it non-notable? Because no evidence has been provided that it is notable, other than Wikipedians insisting that it is, and that is not how WP:GNG works. Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 16:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @ PEIsquirrel: Thanks for your thoughtful comment, I can't speak for everyone, but in my case I think this is much like the Listed buildings in Rivington example in WP:CSC, where WP:LISTPURP is satisfied even though we have neither WP:SIGCOV on the topic itself, nor or most entries blue-linked. I only see a potential problem if it later turns out to be difficult to adjudicate inclusion criteria, or if the list grows beyond the stipulated 32k of text. While you reference cross-categorizations, WP:LISTN specifically states There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists so that's hardly a strong deletion arguement. It continues Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability (emphasis mine). Even if those issues I mentioned do arise that is still not a reason for deletion since there is content suitable for merging elsewhere ( WP:ATD) in which case WP:NNC will apply and any concerns over issues finding SIGCOV of pedimental sculpture as it pertains to Canada specifically would be purely academic. Cheers, 81.177.27.61 ( talk) 19:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Listed buildings in Rivington is not an apt comparison. As that featured article describes, Rivington is a nationally recognized heritage conservation area, and the buildings described therein are also individually listed on a national historic register; several have standalone articles and there are very likely to be academic sources for the ones that don't. This list of pedimental sculptures in Canada is just some art, with no indication that any of it is notable on its own. The buildings may be but as the linked CRHP pages describe, they are notable for heritage value in urban development and preservation, and examples of specific architectural styles, not for their artwork (or not significantly versus other factors). "There is no present consensus" does not mean we ignore the WP:GNG, and if this list fulfills some "recognized informational, navigation, or development purpose" then please provide any evidence at all that it is recognized, beyond your insistence that it is. Wikipedia is not a guidebook for art tourism and not a directory of indiscriminate information. As for WP:ATD, some (not very much) of the information here could be reorganized into lists of heritage architecture based on the CRHP's listings (e.g. the Ancienne-Douane could be included in a list of buildings by notable architect John Ostell, or a list of notable examples of Palladian architecture, if those existed, as those are the notable elements described on its CRHP page, not its pediment artwork). But "some of it could be reused" is not an argument for keeping the non-notable list. Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 12:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
        • @ PEIsquirrel: Thanks for your continued engagement. no indication that any of it is notable on its own well you yourself have conceded at least one is, as to whether others are notable, probably some are, is that unsupported assertion, well so is your assertion that everything in Rivngton is notable, but it's unlikely that there are no others. But actually I think that's all academic/irrelevant, since GNG must be read in concert with LISTN as both are part of the same guideline. You assert that it is not recognised except WP:LISTN does not leave that term out there, hanging undefined. Instead it links directly to WP:LISTPURP, and this certainly falls within the ambit of informational purpose. You assert indiscriminate, predicated on your own analysis, but that's not how that works or else many afds would just have a chorus of people saying, I think it's indiscriminate and others saying I think it isn't with no standard by which to judge, but in fact we have guidelines that reify that policy in practice and in this case that guideline is WP:CSC. As of right now this passes the 3rd criterion Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group so it is not indiscriminate under our own guidelines (there is less than 32k of text). Finally you've conceded that there is useful information that could be organized and reused. If that is the case deletion is already off the table per policy, that may mean merging, but that can be dealt without outside of afd. Which is to say presumably you would be ok with a result of Keep with no prejudice against a speedy merge discussion, and I'd be fine with that as well, so our positions aren't too far apart, and I'd have to do some more research and think that one over. Of course that's just my opinion and I know your speaking to the group as a whole, likely Doncram will have a differrent perspective along with many others. Cheers, 81.177.27.61 ( talk) 19:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep but Needs work I think the topic is within the notable topic of architecture in Canada. The article should focus on notable examples as sections, and keep a pruned list of examples of type. As it is, it is mostly just a long list of examples without notable characteristics fully documented. There is no way a list like this could be comprehensive, so it should focus on notable examples. For example, I would think all of the buildings on the registry of historic places should be kept. Sure, it is a niche work, but that should not matter. Alaney2k ( talk) 15:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Without knowing anything about Canadian heritage listings, I'd be rather surprised if any of the buildings on the list are not listed. For example neither the list nor the article say that the Alberta Legislature Building (top of the list) is listed, but I bet it is. Johnbod ( talk) 15:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
      • And here it is on the Alberta list. Johnbod ( talk) 15:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
        • The listing mentions the building's pediment several times but doesn't say anything about a sculpture within that pediment. The building is certainly notable, but is the pedimental sculpture? pburka ( talk) 15:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
          • I take "monumental pediment" to mean a pediment with monumental sculpture in it. There are several references to the level of ornamental sculpture on and in thebuilding. It isn't a very precise architectural description - it doesn't even say how many bays the facades have, normally the first thing any such description says. In any case it isn't necessary to demonstate the items in the list are individually notable. Johnbod ( talk) 19:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The topic of pedimental sculpture itself is widely written on going back to Ancient Greece and Rome. As a broader art subject its of interest to writers on art and architecture. Likewise Canadian art is also a topic of interest within sources and research. In this case we are overlapping/intersecting two broader notable areas of art in what is a reasonable intersection. Likewise much of the architecture within the list is notable with its own stand alone articles, so this is a reasonable navigation list. Any unsourced content can be challenged and removed, but given that many of these are notable buildings there is likely to be RS to verify this article (much of it offline in books and other publications on the art and architecture of these buildings). 4meter4 ( talk) 16:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • KEEP The only claimed policy based reason to delete I see above is WP:NLIST which says "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists." Nope - the guideline just doesn't agree with the claim. Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Regency Tower

Regency Tower (  | 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 appear to satisfy WP:NGEO. No significant coverage of the building in WP:RS, unless I'm looking in the wrong places. – DarkGlow • 19:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep passes WP:GNG with the sources presented by NemesisAT. TipsyElephant ( talk) 01:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Per the sources provided, it passes WP:NBUILDING as it was one of the structures most heavily impacted by the Oklahoma City Bombing aside from the Murrah Building and can justifiably be included within the historical scope of it, thus fulfilling the notability criteria for its historicity. Furthermore, it is the largest residential building in a top 25 US city, which lends to its social and economic importance. Pona12 ( talk) 12:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Northpoint (skyscraper)

Northpoint (skyscraper) (  | 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)

Residential building does not meet WP:NBUILDING. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable condominium, does not meet criteria for WP:NBUILDING. The non-notable "award" is a vanity award: Propertyguru.com's "Thailand Property Award". Basically any architect or a firm who enters this PR award gets it - if they pay for the marketing package - pay-to-play. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andromeda (skyscraper) for more info on content from the UPE account who has been creating these articles. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion or advertizing. Netherzone ( talk) 17:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
    • "The UPE account who has been creating these articles" did not create this one. This article was created in 2009 (though by an account whose few contributions are all about Raimon Land's projects). -- Paul_012 ( talk) 14:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Paul_012 Thank you for pointing that out, I struck the sentence in my comment above, but still maintain the article should be deleted, as I don't think it meets notability requirements, and the sourcing is weak. This article creator has not answered the inquiry on their talk page re: COI, however they are a single purpose editor for Raimond Land development projects. Netherzone ( talk) 16:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: It was something like the 7th tallest building in Thailand upon completion, and the first of a huge wave of skyscraper construction in Pattaya, so there should probably be some coverage in that respect, though I'm finding it elusive. 2008 is over a decade ago, though, so it's possbile there's news coverage that's now offline. What's available online include the usual coverage (mostly PR-based) in the Pattaya Mail [15] [16] [17], a piece about the Pattaya real estate landscape from a website of Hotels.com [18], a review on real estate website Think of Living (no, I still say it's far from proven that it's sponsored content) [19], and an article on the website of real estate agent Town & Country Property, which, while glowingly positive, seems to reflect the author's assessment and doesn't appear to be sponsored, though a real estate agent probably doesn't exactly qualify as a reliable source [20]. There are some magazine results in Google Books as well [21], but no previews available so hard to say what the degree of coverage is. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 12:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This is the kind of prestige project that normally generates third-party coverage, and the Art and AsiaPacific snippet found via Google Books search suggests that there are sources that aren't quite easily available as we're looking decade late. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 14:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 10:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello Paul_012. What makes you say this is a "prestige project"? Also, could you please post the link of the Art and AsiaPacific snippet that you are referring to? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, one generally doesn't go around building the tallest building outside of Bangkok if not aiming for prestige. Mentions by the South China Morning Post also suggest so: "The developer is leading Thailand's luxury condominium charge with The River project in Bangkok ... and Northpoint Condominium Pattaya." [22] "In November, Raimon Land will launch the high-end luxury condominium complex Northpoint in Pattaya. The development is already 20 per cent sold, proving the high demand for this location." [23] Search snippets can't be linked, I think. It's the first one shown in the Google Books link in my above comment. (I can't quite tell though whether it's from a piece of coverage or an advertisement, which is why I only said that it suggests that there are more sources: "Featuring an exceptional mix of luxurious and spacious residences, majestic gardens and a world of recreational choices, Northpoint is quite simply Pattaya's most sought-after beachfront address.") -- Paul_012 ( talk) 06:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Paul for the explanation and for sharing those links. In my opinion, they are passing mentions but indeed they do hint at notability being possible with more sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

List of future tallest buildings

List of future tallest buildings (  | 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)

Topic lacks sources supporting that WP:NLIST is met. There are also WP:CRYSTALBALL concerns for an article about buildings that may or may not be constructed. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 01:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 01:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 01:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, I agree with this approach. Maybe simplify the title slightly to List of tallest buildings under construction? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC) On second thoughts, I think the redirect suggested by Vladimir.copic is the best option. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I have no strong objection to that, but I don't want to be clear that it captures buildings under construction that have not yet reached any particularly great height, but for which the construction plans envision that result. BD2412 T 02:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
How about a redirect instead to List of tallest buildings#Buildings under construction? Vladimir.copic ( talk) 23:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Rename/modify per the above suggestion. Jclemens ( talk) 05:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Just rename it. Most of the things listed have their own articles. Dream Focus 17:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to List of planned tallest buildings under construction as suggested above by BD2412. Waddles  🗩  🖉 20:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Rename per BD2412. Kerberous ( talk) 10:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are certainly notable tall buildings planned. This is not the forum for a rename, and I rather think editors of the list-article would have agonized about its naming at its Talk page before, or at a WikiProject talk page or elsewhere. I think participants voting for a rename here already might know that the wp:RM process for a contested move is appropriate, would get the appropriate notice and attention and expertise applied. Although, frankly, IMO the name is fine. -- Doncram ( talk) 20:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Renaming is within the valid outcomes for an AfD. If the article isn't limited to "under construction", I think it becomes open slather for buildings that will never get built. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The article is not "slather". I think renaming here in order to change the scope of the well-constructed list article would be inappropriate, too casually done by drive-by editors; changing the scope can/should be discussed at its Talk page. Buildings not under construction can be planned, documented, covered in reliable sources, too. -- Doncram ( talk) 04:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC(talk) 01:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per Vladamir.copic. Clarityfiend ( talk) 10:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep falls within WP:LISTPURP, potentially could be merged back with a redirect to the section, but that would run the risk of bloating the parent article even if done carefully. Scheduled and expected future events have always been allowed under WP:CRYSTAL when verifiable without original research. While individual under-construction buildings are sometimes never finished, the same could be said for future sporting events or other similar topics, the key is that the event be highly likely to occur, once a project of this scale is initiated sunk costs mean that construction is nearly always continued to completion, hence the glut of towers that often finish after an economic downturn has started. Issues with sourcing for individual entries can be dealt with by normal editing, WP:NOTCLEANUP etc. I'm a bit meh on the rename as it's rather clunky, I think when readers are at this title most will already understand it to be a list of planned tallest buildings under construction without having that spelled out explicitly. A better strategy to avoid well-meaning but detrimental drive-by additions would be a more carefully worded lead, and perhaps a hidden note or two. 81.177.27.61 ( talk) 16:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

ÏCE Condominiums at York Centre

ÏCE Condominiums at York Centre (  | 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:NBUILD and WP:GNG. A condo complex in a city with a surfeit of such. Brief mentions in reputable media such as The Globe and Mail re: its allegedly huge number of Airbnb units, but no in-depth coverage of the building or its architecture. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 20:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 20:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 20:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • leaning delete If there were a number of articles such as that used to cite the claim that "the towers have become a symbol for Toronto's housing market crisis", there would be more of an argument for keeping this, but one use as an example is not enough to justify this, and what else I'm seeing is not especially important. Mangoe ( talk) 23:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:other stuff exists. It's a lot bigger and more western than tons of other non notable buildings with articles. B137 ( talk) 00:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHERSTUFF is an instance of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, not a point in favour of keeping this article. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 00:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The building was nominated for the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat Award for Best Tall Buildings Americas for its use of sustainable architectural design. That would seem to meet criteria 2 of WP:NBUILD. See page 267. Additionally, there are other sources in google books with coverage. 4meter4 ( talk) 22:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀 Locomotive207- talk 🌀 00:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Google mostly brings up articles about stuff happening in the buildings, noting about why they're notable. Toronto has lots of tall buildings, most aren't notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Lots of buildings get nominated for awards by industry groups. I do not think this project is notable. Alaney2k ( talk) 18:18, 14 September 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))