Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

Points of interest related to Arts on Wikipedia: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Arts. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Arts|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Arts. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Purge page cache

watch

Michael Robert Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hello - recommending this article for deletion for the following reasons.

Seems like a promotional page by a very ocassional contributor to some industry news, with plenty of links to his own website (cited as a source) and references to prominent or notable collaberators who are all not listed on wikipedia.

Suspicious edits by 81.175.147.23 who appears to only be active on this page (this IP address is based in the same town as Mr Watson) as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DorianRichard1985 which also appears to be the subject, and created this article. There have been no meaningful edits except by these two contributors, who both appear to be Mr Watson.

This is a promotional page with poor source links, some unverifiable, created to promote the career of an ocassional opinion columnist. Does not meet Wikipedias standard for notability, nor source quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Arts, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. No GS trace at all for "Michael Robert Watson", so either he publishes under a different name or his work has received no attention. The detailed education history without sources usually says the article was written by someone who is/knows the subject. Does anyone know if "ZerO books" is the same as Zero Books? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments below, I checked GS for "Mike Watson"; the highest-cited works I could find had 21 citations (Can the Left Learn to Meme?: Adorno, Video Gaming, and Stranger Things) and 13 citations (The Memeing of Mark Fisher: How the Frankfurt School Foresaw Capitalist Realism and What to Do About It), but I might well have missed something as there are so many other Mike Watsons; I don't think these citations would meet WP:PROF, but reviews should be sought to address potential notability under WP:AUTHOR. If the article is kept it needs to be moved to "Mike Watson ([disambiguator])". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern here is the article appears to be self-authored, with two key accounts in its creation having only ever edited this article (one IP, one logged in). This would be less of an issue if it was an especially noteworthy subject but at the moment Wiki runs risk of being a promotional page or 'find my articles online' site. Many many academic / media figures who are more prolific, many more citations, do not have wikipedia pages. Also there is some unsourced biographic information here. All in I think it should be deleted unless new high quality sources can be found and more credible evidence of Mr Watson's relevance / impact 85.68.25.118 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until the encyclopedia actually prohibits writing autobiographical content, rather than strongly discouraging it, suspicions that the article might be authored by the subject are not valid grounds for deletion. However, I've just put all four book titles into JSTOR and come up with nothing, so I'm not arguing for retention unless someone can show that WP:AUTHOR is met by reviews that JSTOR does not index, or GNG is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Indisputably they are one and the same. They have often used that stylising for many years and the content mentioned in this article would make it obvious anyway. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. @Espresso Addict: He publishes as "Mike Watson", hence all the references mentioning that name.
  Yes, "ZerO books" = Zero Books (sometimes styled "Zer0 books").
  (I don't have, as the Brits say, a dog in this fight. I chanced on the article because Mike Watson had a column in the London Guardian.)
  Angusta (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Angusta: Ah, thanks, so it looks like he is this Mike Watson[1]. (The piece mentions a further book, by the way.) Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Club of Budapest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No proof of notability per WP:ORG PtQa (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Philosophy, Organizations, Politics, and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arts Marketing Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. A search for sources found nothing indepth. 1 of the 2 supplied sources is its own website. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AccessArt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I stand by my original PROD reason, which was that it seems unlikely there will be enough coverage to meet WP:NORG.

The Guardian article cited is written by Briggs and seems to be more about her opinions on art than the organisation itself. All the other coverage I've been able to find such as this 2002 article also from the Guardian barely goes beyond mentioning the name.

Deprodded with the reason charity affects education and culture for millions of young people nationally, which is a valid CCS preventing A7, but WP:NONPROFIT are still required to receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, which I have not been able to find. There are some brief mentions in trade journals, but they rarely go beyond just a name check. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can only find scattered mentions of this charity [2], [3] and [4]. Trivial mentions, not enough to build an article. Barely much more found in the refs now used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: With an active fee-paying membership of 22,000 schools (together educating the majority of children in the UK), and with each school providing coverage of the charity's educational materials and each referring to the charity's guidelines when shaping their curriculums... coverage by the schools should be considered as significant, independent and reliable. ArtDataArt (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: While I understand its impact on education is immense, I don't see enough significant coverage from reliable sources regarding this organization to establish its notability. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoryPhillips(DJ)

• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 2#Template:UK underground

In Honor of a Lifetime of Sexual Assault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS, followup of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Donald Trump (Philadelphia). No evidence that (or reason why) this protest will have more sustained, enduring notability than the countless other protests happening every day and being reported on in news articles. Fram (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Visual arts, United States of America, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. Fram (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside comment about the Trump articles in general. Based on Category:Trump family and subcategories therein, I suspect AFD will have numerous Trump-related articles up for deletion. — Maile (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and potentially merge with pages describing other Trump statues. While the Portland and Philadelphia ones are confined to a particular timeframe, I think there is notability in the fact that statues have popped up since 2016 and perhaps pages can be merged into a single "Trump Statues" page with some editing to remove extraneous details. Nnev66 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stolperstein of London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article dedicated to a single Stolperstein, which is a Holocaust memorial stone, placed in the UK. There have been over one hundred thousand of these stones placed, and the single stone placed in the UK is already covered in the inclusive article List of places with stolpersteine, and in fact that article doesn't even link here in any way. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and United Kingdom. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Reason for the nom is that this is essentially very specific listcruft, where the only thing in the list is a single item that is already covered elsewhere. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it was the very first stolperstein in england and therefor has a unique meaning is an important symbol. it is very nessesary for people to know it.--Donna Gedenk (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maronite flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is most likely based on original research. There are no reliable sources about a distinct "Maronite flag." The white flag with a cedar is simply an earlier version of the Flag of Lebanon. Syphax98 (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The page has multiple sources. Request is just being done by user who does negationist edits to anything Maronite. [5] Red Phoenician (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, user failed to notify me of the proposal. Red Phoenician (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't talk about a distinct "Maronite flag". --Syphax98 (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And please just talk about the sources and don't try to label me. I could do the same thing by pointing out the nature of your contributions (we are discussing it here), which are clearly associated with ethnonationalist ideas, deprecated here on Wikipedia. I am active on the Italian-language Wikipedia, not here. Here on the English-language Wikipedia I am limiting myself to these topics, because I was surprised by how much certain users have imposed certain clearly POV ideas in recent years. --Syphax98 (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the sources distinctly talk about a Maronite flag. Please review all the sources before making claims. Red Phoenician (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The crwflags website couldn't be considered a reliable source. The Lebanese Armed Forces website does not refer to any "Maronite flag" and calls this version "العلم اللبناني في الفترة الانتقالية (1918-1920)" ("The Lebanese flag in the transitional period (1918-1920)"). The Minbladeh website (also non reliable anyway) makes no reference to a "Maronite flag" and defines this as the "Flag of the region of Lebanon after the fall of the Ottoman Empire (1918-1920)". Some sources refer to the fact that this version was used widely by the Maronite community (which was the main religious community in favor of the formation of an independent Lebanon"), but sources rarely refer to it as the "Maronite flag". The article itself refers to the fact that this flag was designed by Shukri El Khoury and Naoum Labaki, active in the Mahjar (an Arab cultural association); the activity of these two intellectuals was never aimed at creating a separate Maronite identity, but rather an Arab and Lebanese identity that transcended religious boundaries. --Syphax98 (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Graphique Internationale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article based on primary sources and fails WP:ORG for lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Organizations. LibStar (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dallas Contemporary (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)

Critical itinerary of Gasparo Cairano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a very poor translation of it:Itinerario_critico_di_Gasparo_Cairano. It appears to be a historiography of the titular architect, and how his standing has changed over the years. That type of information can be worthy of a standalone article sometimes (see Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music), but only if high-quality secondary sources can be found. Unfortunately, this article is in large part original research from primary sources. For example, the only citation for the statement that There is no mention of Gasparo Cairano in Elia Capriolo's chronicle is the centuries old text itself; no indication is given about why this omission matters at all. The only properly used secondary source comes from one "Vito Zani", where multiple should be cited to preserve independence of content. Zani is also covered heavily in the § Studies and debates of the 21st century section, which makes me wonder if a conflict of interest exists. Mach61 19:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and Italy. Mach61 19:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft: so the translation can be sorted out? It appears that there's a story here to be told, the article is too long to be hokum. Oaktree b (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oaktree b Woulda done that, but the article was actually just approved from AfC Mach61 22:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I was the AfC reviewer. While reviewing, I didn't fully comprehend the translation errors. That being said, I don't think WP:DRAFTIFY would prevent it from being moved back to draftspace for translation correction, unless there would be any objections.
  Interestingly, the AfC review process says nothing about when an article is a poor translation, or the prose quality in general. Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 02:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on TNT grounds. Functionally incomprehensible confirmed machine-translated version of the Italian Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 04:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aksu Dam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find enough recent sources to show it notable. There are other rivers with the same name. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Engineering, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wileńska street (Bydgoszcz) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reason this street is notable, only coverage is routine sources. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis W. Wynkoop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An entirely blanked article because it fails WP:NBIO and has WP:COI issues. Somehow, nobody thought about making a deletion discussion throughout all of this process. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing there: delete. Athel cb (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Something now@Athel cb:. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, California, and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: and restore immediately the content! This is not how things should be done. On top of this, Wynkoop is a notable architect. I understand the nominator has good intentions but this is a procedural keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I have restored the content. While BLARing and redirecting the page could have been acceptable (maybe not the best solution, but procedurally acceptable at least), the mere blanking of the page was disruptive, especially as the one !voter here does not seem to have looked at the history of the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well ping @Left guide and @Arch2all to see what arguments they have. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the redirect, because it linked to a page which is not directly related to Francis Wynkop. I haven't deleted the previous content. It is not an acceptable solution to create misleading redirects in this case. Keep the old content or delete the whole page, if no one can create acceptable content here. Arch2all (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wynkoop is with 2 Os; and the redirect (although I think the page should be kept) was not misleading. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect per the edit summary argument which is still fully valid:

  fails WP:NBIO, virtually all of the coverage available for this person is paid sources, passing mentions, and questionable sources that don't count towards notability

  Also possibly the product of COI/UPE based on the banned article creator's history. Left guide (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure your general assessment of the sources as a whole is correct but WP:NPEOPLE indicates that persons meeting the following criterion may be considered notable: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;" That is obviously the case here. Your redirect was not misleading (see above) but I consider it is not necessary.

  Also, @TeapotsOfDoom pinging the 2 contributors who redirected/blanked the page respectively might be seen as inappropriate, although it was limited, open and neutral in its wording, as the audience might fall under the category "partisan". I am certain you did it in good faith and both users were not selected for their opinion on the subject but their opinion on the subject was obviously clear to you before you pinged them. Thank you all the same.

  Anyway, despite strong indications of notability, I stand by my procedural SK !vote. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin comment, I see no grounds for a speedy keep as BLAR is normal part of editing. Please focus on notability and not procedural issues. Star Mississippi 11:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But I will focus on procedural issues, though. Please look at the history of the page and of this AfD. And please read my comment with more attention. "Blaring" is not an issue. Blanking a page, however, is not, I must insist, normal part of editing. At all. And nominating a blank page, even in good faith, is sufficient ground for SK in my view, at least for procedural keep. See first !vote and see nominator's rationale. So, as your comment is apparently made in quality of administrator and my input seems to be the only thing you notice here, please kindly read: Wikipedia:Page blanking. It's a guideline. As for the rest, I mentioned notabilty too, myself (twice), but AfDs are not always about notability only and when a procedural flaw is patent, it is relevant to mention it and it is permitted if not recommended, to !vote accordingly. Thank you for your time and concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The history is accessible and anyone participating in an AfD should look at the current and past state of an article when evaluating an AfD (Prod, MfD, etc.) for necessary information. There are no procedural grounds that invalidate the nomination. If Wynkoop is found to be notable, it will be retained. If not, it won't be. Neither instance requires a procedural restart to the discussion, which might be the case if there were Rev Del or other factors that impacted non admins from seeing the history. My comment is that of one admin, you're welcome to continue asking for others to weigh in. I think your (collectively) time would be best spent assessing notability. Drive by comments (not yours, the one you refer to) are regularly disregarded by closers. Star Mississippi 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, if blanking is OK with you and nominating a blank page as such too, perfect, but you might want to change the guideline then. As I've already told you, I've already replied in regard to the notability issue with 2 comments, that you apparently haven't seen. But I'll do it one more time, although I think I am wasting my time with a completely irregular debate. Frank Wynkoop is a notable architect, creator of various very notable works, some listed on the page, with solid references, and he thus clearly, fairly and easily meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) and in particular the criterion I quoted above, but let's go, I'll quote it again (if anyone mentions bludgeoning, I'll direct them to you, hope we agree on that): "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;" That is obviously the case here: https://www.atomic-ranch.com/interior-design/designers-craftsmen/frank-wynkoop-the-butterfly-house/; Dramov, Alissandra, and Momboisse, Lynn A.. Historic Homes and Inns of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Arcadia Publishing Incorporated, p. 8 (quoted on the page and perfectly acceptable); https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/ad-goes-inside-carmels-iconic-butterfly-house; Papp, James. San Luis Obispo County Architecture. Arcadia Publishing, 2023.p.121 ; Engineering News-record. (1962). McGraw-Hill, p. 50; Landscape Architecture: Home landscape, Publication Board of the American Society of Landscape Architects, 1980, p. 164.; etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No concern with bludgeoning. You're making the case that he's notable - great. That's what the closer will need. It's not an irregular debate. Thanks! Star Mississippi 03:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Is there any reliable indept sourcing for any works apart from the Butterfly House? On a cursory look I've not seen any. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If I remember correctly, the Seaburst House did, but the source was on the Internet Archive so I don't have access to it at the moment. It does have at least one piece of SIGCOV here. The Centralia Fox Theatre has SIGCOV here, here, here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fwiw, I've paged through newspaper hits for variations on his name & architect and found virtually nothing beyond he was the named architect on a number of schools. Best school coverage I noticed was Lakeside School was inspected by county groups (Modesto Bee And News Herald Newspaper Archives February 6, 1948 Page 17) which appears to have a few paras (can't read properly the scan quality is so poor). There's also a couple of Proquest hits mentioning his work renovating Bakersfield Hall of Records (Repository of county records celebrates 100 years of history. Shearer, Jenny.  McClatchy - Tribune Business News; Washington. 24 Jan 2009. & Best buildings of downtown: Take the tour. Self, Jennifer. TCA Regional News; Chicago. 18 May 2016). I'd suggest the possibility of a merge with Butterfly House (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California), including a para or so about his life and other projects. With architects very predominantly known for one building that usually seems the best approach. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A merge makes sense to me. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All the sourcing points to the fact he was just a local, run of the mill architect, without any significant coverage of him that would go beyond routine local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 06:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, I've looked through the sourcing here and in the article - the best sources basically say he designed a house in Carmel, but don't really elaborate on him at all. The article uses a lot of short, routine newspaper clippings such as paid obituaries and marriage licenses to pad it out, which don't count. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- This architect designed a number of notable structures. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which apart from Butterfly House? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To remind you, we are discussing the notability of the subject. Whether the current contents of the page are blank or not matters not a whit, as Star Mississippi pointed out. And once a valid view to delete has been entered, an improper nomination is no longer reason for a procedural keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I changed my vote to a normal notability Keep; but I am not convinced by the validity of nominating a blank page because (see nom’s rationale) it is blank...AND, precisely, the 1st D !vote before my SK procedural !vote did not seem valid to me BECAUSE the page was blank. (See vote’s content).. ,,so that, according to your very comment, a procedural K vote seemed.... perfectly valid. ........ Anyway, I changed my vote to avoid long debates about now side issues...Mushy Yank (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ’’’Weak delete’’’ - he was clearly an accomplished and successful architect who designed at least two beautiful houses - the photos are lovely. The majority of the text is antiquarian chuff, but that could be pruned if there is a core of notability here. But none of the sources shows real notability. Llajwa (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would endorse merging some of this content into the Butterfly House article, as another editor suggested. Llajwa (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I know this is part of the Greg Henderson cleanup, but I think Wynkoop clearly passes WP:ARCHITECT criterion 3 as someone who created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work (i.e., the Butterfly House, which must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews and passes that criterion with WP:SIGCOV in Architectural Digest, the Arizona Republic, the Wall Street Journal and other outlets. No prejudice against cleaning up or trimming the text. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Dclemens1971 Is there a need for two articles, though? We have one on Butterfly House. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, because a biography of the architect isn't appropriate to include in an article on the building. This is not really an edge case; this is an unambiguous pass of criterion 3 of ARCHITECT/CREATIVE. This criterion doesn't provide only a presumption of notability; instead, such a person is notable (emphasis added). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not generally known for my deletionist tendencies, but WP:AUTHOR, which is the same guideline as WP:ARCHITECT, is almost universally held to require two books each with reviews, otherwise it defaults to an article on the book that briefly covers the biography. If an architect were known for a single, extremely major building that took decades to complete, perhaps... but Butterfly House is the architecture equivalent of a single novel. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The requirement is for multiple reviews, not for multiple works. (Wikipedia has lots of articles about authors who wrote a single book; see Kathryn Stockett for example.) NCREATIVE literally says a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. That's the literal reading of the text. Clearly we disagree about whether it applies, but I stand by the plain reading of the policy. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the architecture guidelines met?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peruri 88 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article generally does not meet the WP:NBUILDING or WP:GNG guidelines. Had the building been constructed or been under construction, it might have qualified under these guidelines, as it would be the tallest building in Jakarta and likely attract substantial coverage. Unfortunately, it remains only a design proposal from 2012, and 12 years later, there have been no further updates or developments on this plan. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that we had a look for sources at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia#Peruri 88. Also note that, at least for the coordinates of the purported site, very recent Google StreetView imagery shows no evidence of the site being cleared (there's still commercial and residential structures, apparently occupied), never mind construction. Ckfasdf has informed user:M R Karim Reza, the article's creator (who remains active on en.wikipedia), of the deletion.-- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Finlay McWalter: This is the latest Google Street View image, dated August 2024, showing no signs of construction or site clearing. The proposed location is still in use by Peruri as their office and facility Ckfasdf (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a potential compilation of planned but either on-hold.., or otherwise never constructed projects in Jakarta, or something similar, rather than delete, there are probably a lot more there, waiting to join the list, and in a collection it would be adequately notable as a phenomenon, rather than in single sites as never started projects or stalled proposals.JarrahTree 11:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's no evidence that this is anything more than an unfunded paper project. As such, there are no real independent sources and no substantial coverage. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 09:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If proposing a Merge or Redirect, please spell out the proposed target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Without a proposed target article, this article can not be Merged. Please identify one if this is your desired outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8 Clearwater Bay Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I proposed this for deletion with the reason "None of the sources are reliable, independent sources giving significant attention to this building. Databases, sources from companies related to the building, an apartment for sale... are not the sources needed to create an article on the apparently 3033rd highest building in the world. Are there indepth, non-routine, independent sources about this building? Its architecture, controversies, archaeological finds during construction, anything?"

Since then, the poorest sources have been removed, but nothing was done about the fundamental issues. If there is only routine coverage, unreliable sources, and database entries for this building, then it shouldn't have an article. Fram (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Hong Kong. Fram (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My vote is Keep as of now. I'm seeing that you're probably concerned about the WP:TOOSOON criteria in this case. However, the article proposed for deletion can be expanded by other users in time. There is no need to tag it with a deletion notice yet. Other Hong Kong building articles such as Sino Plaza and The Westpoint can freely function as stubs when they are based on the same type of primarily database references until additional citations are found. Maybe the

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "Arts" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Arts" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Arts" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

type of tag is more fit in this situation. JeyReydar97 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why you think TOOSOON would apply to an article about a building from 2005. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a reason to keep an article. Fram (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Artificial features says:

  Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

  Sources

  1. "清水灣道8號 擬賣地後登場" [8 Clearwater Bay Road Set to Launch After Proposed Sale]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2004-10-02.

     The article contains 1,000 Chinese characters. The article notes: "發展商睇好賣地成績而加快推盤步伐，其中由俊和集團發展的彩虹地鐵站上蓋項目，已正式訂命為清水灣道8號，示範單位即將開放予公眾參觀，可望在賣地後隨即開售。由俊和集團於2001年投得彩虹地鐵站上蓋項目，已正式訂命「清水灣道8號」，物業興建進度理想，已建至逾15樓 ..."

     From Google Translate: "Developers are accelerating the pace of launching new properties in light of the good land sales results. Among them, the Choi Hung MTR Station project developed by Chun Wo Group has been officially named as 8 Clear Water Bay Road. The show flat will be open to the public for viewing soon and is expected to be launched for sale immediately after the land sale. The Choi Hung MTR Station project won by Chun Wo Group in 2001 has been officially named as "8 Clear Water Bay Road". The construction progress of the property is ideal and has been built to more than 15 floors."

     The article notes: "以單幢式設計的清水灣道8號，樓高逾50樓，每層6至8夥設計，單位總數共316個。物業基座設有多層停車場及購物商場，住宅由12樓起至頂層57樓連天台單位。分層單位面積由622至982平方呎，分2房、3房及3房連套房間隔，所有單位均設有38呎環保露台，同區罕有。"

     From Google Translate: "8 Clearwater Bay Road is a single-building building with over 50 floors, 6 to 8 units per floor, and a total of 316 units. The property base has a multi-storey car park and a shopping mall, and the residential units range from the 12th floor to the top floor 57th floor with rooftop units. The area of ​​the stratified units ranges from 622 to 982 square feet, with 2 bedrooms, 3 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms with suites. All units have 38-foot environmentally friendly terraces, which are rare in the area."

  2. Chan, Yuen-su 陳阮素 (2012-12-28). "清水灣道8號 高層平租靚景" [8 Clearwater Bay Road: High-rise flat rental with beautiful views]. Sharp Daily (in Chinese).

     The article contains 493 Chinese characters. The article notes: "牛池灣年輕屋苑選擇不多，單幢式物業清水灣道8號，樓齡不足10年，加上位處港鐵彩虹站上蓋，基座商場特設出入口，交通方便就腳，租務承接力特強，但由於盤源不多，因此形成僧多粥少情況。"

     From Google Translate: "There are not many choices for young housing estates in Ngau Chi Wan. The stand-alone property at 8 Clear Water Bay Road is less than 10 years old. In addition, it is located above the MTR Choi Hung Station. The base shopping mall has a special entrance and exit. The transportation is convenient and the rental is very convenient. The undertaking capacity is very strong, but because there are not many disk sources, there is a situation where there are too many monks and too little food."

  3. "清水灣道8號高層貼息兩年" [Two-year interest rate discount for high-rise buildings at 8 Clear Water Bay Road]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2005-09-23.

     The article notes: "配合牛池灣地皮拍賣，俊和集團（711）重推同區清水灣道8號高層海景單位，每呎7000元起，發展商夥渣打銀行，提供2年利息津貼。城市理工大學管理碩士課程主任兼財經界專欄作家曾淵滄，最近斥資700萬元，購入該廈50樓E、F相連單位，約1300方尺，每呎約5385元。"

     From Google Translate: "In conjunction with the Ngau Chi Wan land auction, Chun Wo Group (711) re-launched the high-rise sea view unit at 8 Clear Water Bay Road in the same district, starting from HK$7,000 per square foot. The developer partnered with Standard Chartered Bank to provide a two-year interest subsidy. Zeng Yuancang, director of the Master of Management Program at City Polytechnic University and a columnist in the financial industry, recently spent HK$7 million to purchase the connecting unit E and F on the 50th floor of the building, which is approximately 1,300 square feet, at approximately HK$5,385 per square foot."

  4. "清8原價加推兩高層" [Clear 8 original price plus two high-rise buildings]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2005-03-05.

     The article notes: "俊和旗下彩虹站上蓋清水灣道8 號重新推出後取得不俗銷情，發展商趁近日樓市升溫，趁勢於本週末加推十六個高層單位應市，平均尺價維持六千八百元，售價未有進一步調升，但較早前所提供的現金回贈優惠，則有所削減，但發展商仍維持會贈送厘印費。"

     From Google Translate: "8 Clear Water Bay Road, above Choi Hung Station owned by Chun Wo, has achieved good sales after its relaunch. The developer has taken advantage of the recent heating up of the property market and launched 16 more high-rise units on the market this weekend. The average price per square foot remains at HK$6,800, the selling price has not been further increased, but the cash rebate offer earlier provided has been reduced, but the developer will still maintain the free printing fee."

  5. "彩虹站新貴 清水灣道8號快推" [The new upstart in Choi Hung Station, 8 Clear Water Bay Road, quick promotion]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2004-09-30.

     The article notes: "清水灣道8號是俊和由承建商踏足發展商界的第1個項目，相信發展商在設計及用料均會花上不少心思。而從開發商發給地產代理的新圖則中看到，新圖則全部加入環保露台及加入特色單位，以提升物業價值。該項目提供約330個622至977呎的單位，少量特色單位則由1,163至1,840呎，極高層單位可望舊機場一帶海景。"

     From Google Translate: "No. 8 Clear Water Bay Road is Chun Wo's first project as a contractor in the development industry. I believe the developer will put a lot of thought into the design and materials used. From the new plans sent to real estate agents by developers, all new plans include environmentally friendly terraces and special units to increase property value. The project provides approximately 330 units ranging from 622 to 977 feet, with a small number of specialty units ranging from 1,163 to 1,840 feet. The very high-rise units have sea views around the old airport."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 8 Clearwater Bay Road (simplified Chinese: 清水湾道8号; traditional Chinese: 清水灣道8號) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • yeah Keep the article Bigkhrisdogg (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For assessment of Cunard's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Upon extending the article by adding links to reliable secondary sources represented by notable publications such as Sing Tao Daily, Sharp Daily and Hong Kong Economic Times that provide significant, in-depth and continued coverage, Cunard (talk) proved and sustained WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. Helped with WP:PRESERVE in the process. The article should be WP:SALTed in order to be protected against future nominations.

JeyReydar97 (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what salting means. Geschichte (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article, it looks like well written. The user already create many new wiki articles with reliable sources. Dasomm (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I just spend Election Day working in the Knickerbocker Plaza, a building almost exactly the same size as this: 40 stories, 400 apartments. In a large city like New York or Hong Kong, there are literally hundreds of such buildings. There is always going to be excited local coverage about a new development, often egged on by developers themselves. We are not a directory of the 156 tallest buildings in every city in the world. Bearian (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are "hundreds of such buildings" with proper identity and distinctive. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS shouldn't be brought up as an argument of deletion in this case. The sources cited in the article sustain WP:NEXIST with a neutral point of view. And I doubt Hong Kong Economic Times is "egged" by developers. JeyReydar97 (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  An article which states e.g. "I believe the developer will put a lot of thought into the design and materials used." hardly comes across as neutral, factual reporting... Fram (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Publications often paraphrase information received from sources of interest (WP:LOCAL in this case). Some of them might indeed be written on a tone inadequate for mainspace articles. However, Cunard has only selected factual information denoting technical details, parties directly implied into the construction process and economic indicators. JeyReydar97 (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We're not seriously calling this significant, independent coverage, are we? This is WP:ROUTINE stuff, sales announcements, and a database page. -- asilvering (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Routine coverage is not a disqualification for notability JeyReydar97 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: i still don't see a clear consensus to keep or delete (non-admin comment)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JuniperChill (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete About as an average of a condo tower as you can get. This gets deleted 9/10 times in any other town as we've done many other times before, and some of the keeps are also forgetting outright that some of the residents don't want a Wikipedia article about their building no matter how many times the local real estate media hype it up. Nate • (chatter) 00:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Whilst the coverage found by Cunard looks a lot, it's rather WP:ROUTINE, e.g. "8 Clear Water Bay Road, above Choi Hung Station owned by Chun Wo, has achieved good sales after its relaunch". For this reason, I don't think this is notable. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I'm honestly waffling between weak keep and weak delete here, as the building has been discussed in at least one English-language Hong Kong architectural book (Xue 2016), in part because it's built on top of a transit station and for being a "pencil tower." I don't really mind if this is deleted, as the articles that have been found appear to be transactional real estate articles, and I'm not sure notability is guaranteed here just because it's been in one architectural book. I think my position is that we haven't entirely demonstrated notability, but we might be a source away. SportingFlyer T·C 01:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The book added by Underwaterbuffalo is the one I found, but the scholarly article is just two listing in two tables. It is helpful, but it doesn't push this into a clear keep. SportingFlyer T·C 08:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The building has been described and used as an example in at least one book and one scholarly article. I have added the references in the article. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• CCG Profiles (via WP:PROD on 7 September 2023)

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

• Deletion sorting: Visual Arts (WP:Visual arts is a descendant of WP:Arts)

• Music-related deletions
• Film and TV-related deletions
• Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)

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

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