From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Arts|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Arts.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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

Arts

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoryPhillips(DJ)

Arts Templates for deletion

Arts Proposed deletions

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists


Visual arts

Jerome K. Moore

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this BLP about an artist working in comics and animation, and added a reference. I cannot find more coverage, however, so do not think he meets WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg ( talk) 14:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Corinne Silva

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

Not sure if this biography is notable. No references. No pages linked. Never quite sure with artists where notability lies. Don't think so in this case. Seaweed ( talk) 18:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - I'm guessing this is either an autobiography or other type of COI creation by a gallery that shows her work due to the entirely unsourced article containing many details about her. A WP:BEFORE search found a review of her work in Financial Times: [1], but almost everything else I have found so far seems to be gallery PR, social media, an interview [2] (primary source that doesn't count towards notability because no editorial content), a book review on F-stop magazine's blog, [3], database listings, press releases. I also found an online artist project for which she took the photos [4]. The Wikipedia Library found an in-depth article by TJ Demos in Photoworks Journal [5] (you might have to log into WP:LIB to read it). What seems to be missing are a track record of art reviews by critics or art historians, works in museum collections, so I don't think she meets NARTIST, but I think she may meet GNG. Holding off on !voting for now, as I'd like to hear feedback from others who edit in the visual arts/photography area. Netherzone ( talk) 20:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I had marked this for notability in 2021. I was in the middle of another task, and did not get back to clean-up/delete. No improvement made to article. Notability tag removed by SPA without adding a single reference. I am not finding any RS to confirm claims made in the article. Fails WP:ARTIST. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 18:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Keep - Changing vote to keep per WP:HEY. I rewrote the lede becasue we still don't have a birth year or place and the second sentence was artspeak, not supported by the citation. I also think the unsourced last paragraph of shows should be removed. Only to be returned with sourcing. Article has changed from an artist statement to an article. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 23:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete: Everything about it leaves a bad taste. Nowhere near statisfying WP:GNG. MaskedSinger ( talk) 07:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - This is nothing more than a artist statement and bio. Complete with the empty "art speak". This has no business being on wikipedia. Steelyphilly ( talk) 13:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Edit: As the article has rewritten I flip my vote to Keep. Thank you@ Netherzone for your research! I still think that artist statements have no business being on here! Steelyphilly ( talk) 01:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – A thorough WP:BEFORE finds that she clearly meets WP:GNG. While in the early stages of her career as an artist who works in the genre of environmental photography and socially aware photography, her work has indeed received critical/analytical coverage that one would expect a notable artist to have. While she does not yet meet WP:NARTIST, there is enough WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources that she solidly meets the general notability guideline. I invite WomenArtistUpdates, MaskedSinger and Steelyphilly to consider the in-depth reliable sources that have been found:
  • Journal article by Caruso, Martina. 2019. "Conversing with Ghosts of the Previously Tamed: lens-based media technologies and non-human animals in the work of Christoph Keller, Corinne Silva and Basma Alsharif" in ESPACE art actuel ‘Point de vue animal/Animal Point of View’, no. 121 (Winter), pp. 28 – 33.
  • Book chapter on her work in: “Photography Reframed: New Visions in Contemporary Photographic Culture.” Editors: Ben Burbridge, Annebella Pollen, the chapter by Chad Elias is on her work: “Landscape Photography's 'New Humanism”, pages 175-186. ISBN 9781784538828, I.B. Tauris (I was able to view on Google Books)
  • Her book, “Garden State”, in addition to the review by Hans Durrer in F-Stop Magazine’s blog [6] linked above, there is this review: 2016 Book review: Corinne Silva: Garden State, by Francesca Laura Cavallo, Camera Austria, Issue 135 [7]
  • In addition to the twelve-page spread by TJ Demos linked above, (2012) Spaces of Global Capital: On the Photography of Corinne Silva & Jason Larkin, TJ Demos, Photoworks 19, ISBN 9781903796368, [8] there is this review: [9], this review [10], this interview: [11],
The article need to be rewritten, probably pruned back to a short stub with proper citations. Netherzone ( talk) 17:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
fair enough. i will take a look. MaskedSinger ( talk) 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
indeed. I added three of the refs above to the article. Still not finding any biographical information that can be used in the article. I will continue looking. I can't get past the FT paywall. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ WomenArtistUpdates, Financial Times has a really strong paywall~! I can't get back in on Safari even after clearing my cookies. I tried accessing it on Firefox and got it at: [12] I copied the text from the article and will email it to you where you can read it offline if you can't access it thru an alternative browser. If I post it here it will be a COPYVIO. Netherzone ( talk) 18:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks Netherzone. I changed my !vote. Thanks for digging deeper. I could not see beyond poorly written article originally presented. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 23:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Conor Collins

Conor Collins (  | 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)

Although this biography has many references, is it actually notable? Does making art that gain media attention due to their provactive notions create sufficient notability? No inbound links. No awards. No wider coverage that I can see. Seaweed ( talk) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Politics, Sexuality and gender, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: More than enough good RS, 3, 4 and 6 are the first ones I pulled up and they're about this individual. I suppose GNG is met, I'm unsure if they meet artistic notability, but they've been talked about enough by others, so that we can also include them here in wiki under general notability. Call it a cultural oddity curiosity I suppose. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I've looked through most of the sources that could be considered reliable, and none are significant coverage that I see. The "Time" source, [13] for example, is just three sentences and an embedded instagram post. Elspea756 ( talk) 23:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: sources 3 and 4 are good, as is source 15 (a reminder that BuzzFeed News is different from BuzzFeed and is reliable). Source 19 even describes the subject as "award-winnning". Toadspike [Talk] 07:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    To respond to SportingFlyer below, I think it's clear that the GNG has been met. For us to decide that people who get excessive media attention for provocative stunts need to meet some higher bar would require an RfC, or for someone to point me to some hidden policy/guideline I've never read. The media is biased toward this stuff, and, for better or for worse, we rely on the media to source our articles and determine what's notable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure, honestly. There's lots of sources - too many, really - in the article talking about his art, because his art is provocative, but many of them are just links to self-promotion on social media. The article needs a good cleanup, too. I don't really see any critical coverage of him, though, that I would expect to see from an artist. Don't really want to delete, but am leaning delete. SportingFlyer T· C 19:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I must admit I'm a bit confused about biographical articles about artists sometimes. I mean, if your life is about creating artworks, when do you become notable? It's fine if that's your career and livelihood, but when does make you notable for an encyclopedia? Where is the line? I think it's also fair to say that a key feature of the artistic world is about awards, prizes, grants etc. It's quite commonplace. Therefore I do wonder sometimes if we give undue weight to artist who has this award or nominated for that award. I'm also a bit concerned that too much weight is placed on media mentions to justify a Wikipedia article. To be fair, I do find it hard work to read all the Wikipedia policies sometimes, but I suppose that's my problem. In summary, I'm still not convinced that Conor Collins is notable enough for Wikipedia. Failing that, it's definitely too detailed. Seaweed ( talk) 19:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes, I don't see notability here either. The notability guideline for artists is WP:ARTIST. It is basically that there needs to be multiple reliable independent sources that devote significant coverage to the artist, or that the artist is widely cited by their peers, has been a significant part of a significant exhibition, their work is in the permanent collections of multiple major museums, things like that. I am not seeing anything like that here, it's all just insignificant WP:ROUTINE coverage of minor run-of-the-mill events, like that "this drawing of a celebrity by a local artist got several thousand likes on twitter." Elspea756 ( talk) 20:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Arch of Dignity, Equality, and Justice

Arch of Dignity, Equality, and Justice (  | 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)

Perhaps surprisingly, there are no independent sources to help this pass WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. Sources listed are either to SJSU, which houses the arch, or to writings of the artist who created it. Additional sources found in WP:BEFORE search are also from SJSU or authored by artist Judy Baca. It gets trivial coverage in a few places (passing reference in a local paper and local visitor guide) but no significant, secondary coverage in independent, reliable sources. One AtD would be to merge any encyclopedic content to Paseo de César Chávez. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I definitely agree that it's surprising that aren't more independent sources featuring the Arch. That being said, I was able to find a few independent sources discussing the Arch, namely:
- A publication from from the San Jose Museum of Art - here
- An article from the Social and Public Art Resource Center - here
- A feature on GPSmyCity - here
- An article by Mosaic Atlas - here (Admittedly, Mosaic Atlas is partnered with SJSU, but ostensibly they're an independent source)
Personally, I think the article should be kept, but adding the More citations needed template and incorporating the above sources. SammySpartan ( talk) 23:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I saw the SPARC piece during my search, but Judy Baca is a [ of SPARC] and the author of the piece. It can't be independent. The GPSMyCity piece appears to be copied from an official SJSU page here. And the final piece published by SJSU cannot be independent when establishing notability of a structure at SJSU. With only the SJMoA piece you found, we still need more sources to get this over GNG or NBUILDING. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 01:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per new sources above, and an artwork is usually kept if the housing institution, gallery, museum, etc., has catalogued it in some form. This is a specific artwork, not a building, and already has enough to pass GNG related to Wikipedia visual arts pages. As for its value to Wikipedia, please note the navboxes which now include it and the benefit of including this artwork within them (the page and this discussion inspired the creation of the {{ Dolores Huerta}} navbox, thanks Sammy Spartan and Dclemens1971). Randy Kryn ( talk) 09:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the artwork is one of the few highly visible landmarks of the SJ public art scene. It has sources on its artistry, historical relevance to Cesar Chavez, and local relevance to San Jose. Cristiano Tomás ( talk) 14:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. @ Cristiano Tomás I agree with you that it is a highly visible landmark. @ Randy Kryn I'd also like to find a way to keep it. But can you show any reliable, secondary, significant coverage that is independent of San Jose State University, the artist Judy Baca who made it, or of the organization she founded? Those sources are what I can't turn up, and that's what is required under policy for GNG and SNGs related to art/buildings. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • This isn't a building, so building notability wouldn't apply. Visual art pages are usually accepted as established with sources from the holding museum or organization, in this case the University mentions would apply toward notability. And wouldn't the University mentions be secondary (primary would be the work itself)? Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    There's no SNG for artworks, so it has to pass GNG, which requires independent sources. Sources from the entity that commissioned the artwork (SJSU) and the artist who made it (Baca) cannot be independent from it for purposes of assessing notability. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No SNG for artworks? I thought there was and, if not, there should be as sourcing to a museum or gallery (which the University would qualify as) has been the standard and used as the sole source on maybe thousands of pages. Better call in (they may be tired of me calling upon their knowledge) Another Believer and Johnbod. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Aside from that it would seem that the new sources added above, such as this from the San Jose Museum of Art, would qualify. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with new sources as previously stated. Additionally, speaking purely from an art history perspective here, Baca is clearly notable enough and this work is clearly prominent enough to merit inclusion.-- 19h00s ( talk) 19:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as even though there is a consensus to Keep and no support for deletion. But there is a valid concern about sourcing so hopefully more can be located over the next few days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review


Architecture

Ledo Hotel

Ledo Hotel (  | 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 about a demolished hotel, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. The referencing here is more than 50 per cent reference bombed to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, such as photographs and directory entries and the self-published websites or Twitter feeds of entities named in the article. And even what there is for proper media coverage isn't building a particularly strong case for notability, as it's entirely local coverage either (a) focusing specifically on the site's place in the city's perennially changing arena-block redevelopment project rather than anything that would establish that it was ever actually noteworthy as a hotel, or (b) tangentially verifying other facts that have nothing whatsoever to do with the hotel, like the existence of the McEwen Architecture School and the farmer's market.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this hotel from having to have a stronger notability claim than just having existed, or from having to have more than just "what is to be done to redevelop the land it used to be on?" for coverage. Bearcat ( talk) 17:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Samadhi of Bodhendra Saraswathi

Samadhi of Bodhendra Saraswathi (  | 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 tomb lacks wide coverage in RS. Most of the text is covered in Bodhendra Saraswathi, whose tomb the subject is. The article has little information on the architecture of the tomb, but rather concentrates more on Bodhendra and his death Redtigerxyz Talk 15:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Mountain House Community station

Mountain House Community station (  | 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 proposed commuter train station does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSTATION Sources 1, 4, and 5 have WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of this planned station in the broader context of the Valley Link system; sources 2 and 3 are primary sources. With this station not scheduled to open until 2028 at the earliest, a standalone article is WP:TOOSOON. I propose to redirect this page to Valley Link until there is sufficient SIGCOV in reliable sources to warrant a standalone page. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 00:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Stations, and California. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per nomination. Appears to be too soon for a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 12:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There are already lots of references, and their number and length will grow as designs are finalized and coverage of the project and individual stations continues. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    You obviously didn't read them as none of the independent sources say more than a sentence or two about the station, and you're making a very bold assumption about a station not expected to open until near the end of the decade. Valley Link already exists. But why let facts get in the way of your personal feelings? Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 12:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Per WP:FUTURE "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." According to the sources, "The Valley Link project has been awarded $25 million by the state.That funding will go toward Valley Link’s first phase — the 26-mile section from the Pleasanton BART station to the proposed Mountain House station. The overall project is expected to cost $3.6 billion." — Maile ( talk) 19:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Regardless of how certain the WP:FUTURE is, the station still has to pass the WP:SIGCOV test to be notable, and it doesn't -- it has passing references in sources focused on the whole system. It will someday, but until then, a redirect is appropriate. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 23:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Nick Winton

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. Lack of quality independent WP:SIGCOV, some cited awards don't seem to check out. Previously PRODded, no indication that the subject is notable or outstanding in their field. Content is WP:NOTRESUME. Likely WP:COI, possibly undisclosed WP:PAID, the creator appears to work only on topic closely related to the commercial entity that the subject has an interest in. Melmann 20:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nomination and Timtrent, company has won a few awards and some coverage in RS, but not Winton on his own. Wikishovel ( talk) 04:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: A rather long list of awards, but I'm not seeing much notability. I can't find any references about this architect, this seems like an exaggerated PROMO, almost to the point of absurdity (I stopped counting at 30 awards)... This much "notability" and no mentions in any RS, something doesn't add up. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Our Lady of Lourdes Church, Visuvasampatti

Our Lady of Lourdes Church, Visuvasampatti (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this local church passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources cited are affiliated with the church or diocese and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to support notability. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Infant Jesus Church, Selliampatti

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

No evidence that this local church passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources cited are affiliated with the church or diocese and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to support notability. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Residencial Manuel A. Perez

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

Fails GNG, NGEO, NBUILDING. All sources are to news coverage, mostly of crime, that mentions the subject in passing as the location of the crime but does not provide significant coverage. No SIGCOV comes up in a BEFORE search either. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Being in the headline is not the test of significant coverage. The articles are about other things in the news (crimes, individual people) that happen to mention the event happened/people lived in the Residencial Manuel A. Perez. Those events/people are getting the significant coverage. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 19:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I appreciate that you have developed an alternative way of thinking about apartment complexes, but at AfD I'm nominating on the basis of official policies, not personal essays that do not represent the consensus of the community. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 01:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Merdeka Memorial Clock Tower, Kulim

Merdeka Memorial Clock Tower, Kulim (  | 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:MILL structure that fails WP:GNG and WP:NGEO. No sources to describe the significance; two news sources provide evidence in cursory coverage that it was constructed but no detail to constitute WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional evidence of notability. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 00:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Plenty of hits about the clock tower in the Singapore National Library, such as [14], but it seems you need to open them on-site in order to be able to read the articles. I've been able to pull these up [15]. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for looking at this @ Oaktree b. There are actually numerous merdeka (aka "independence") towers/monuments in Malaysia, and this article is specifically about the one in Kulim. The searches you linked are for other cities' merdeka towers. A search adding "Kulim" brings up just the one cursory result already sourced in the article, see here. Just sharing in case this info changes your !vote; thanks! Dclemens1971 ( talk) 02:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply
● Keep - Found a few more sources to establish notability.
https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/ce1b4842-51cd-4107-891f-94cb820ff093/Merdeka-Clock-Tower-kulim-kedah
https://www.pressreader.com/malaysia/the-star-malaysia-star2/20180825/281513637011166 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk) 14:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Your first source is just a 3D model of the building. What makes you think this is a reliable source or provides significant coverage? What does this add to the article? Reywas92 Talk 15:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Both sources each have a paragraph about the place. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk) 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I think what @ Reywas92 may be getting at is that that 3D model page is user-generated content. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 19:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still no consensus. Is the last comment advocating a Merge to Kulim District?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Architecture Proposed deletions


Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

Other pages

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

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

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Arts&oldid=1225529781"