Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Architecture

Points of interest related to Architecture on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment

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 Architecture, buildings, construction, city planning and public spaces. 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|Architecture|~~~~}} 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 Architecture, buildings, construction, city planning and public spaces. 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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture/archive

Stadium seating (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 sources, doesn't explain why this is called stadium seating - most venues have seating on a slope or steps. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Stadium#Spectator areas and seating. That section alone does a sufficient job at covering this topic. Grapesoda22 (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak Keep - I believe they are trying to describe a piece of theatre terminology, admittedly quite poorly, so I don't think that merge is appropriate. Ike Lek (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Kayton House (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)

It's not even a NRHP. Once upon a time, a house that is more elaborate than common was built. It changed ownership a few times and have seen several uses, like most buildings. It's now a hotel.

WP:MILL old building. I don't think it meets GNG. Graywalls (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and Georgia (U.S. state). Graywalls (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the article seems to promote the developer; since it is a business, am wondering if it should be assessed per WP:NCORP and WP:NBUILDING Netherzone (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This article as well as Richard C. Kessler has been blemished by public relations editing. Not surprisingly. Check edit history. I feel that notability is puffed up considerably in both cases. Graywalls (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Let's focus just on notability here for a second: there is a reasonable argument to keep. It's in architecture books [1] and Savannah Now article which talks about the building, but if you look closer, the vast, vast majority of sources are about the businesses/hotels occupying the building and not about the building itself. The article as written fails NCORP and it's not clear that it would pass if the article were about the hotel itself. In short, this is an article which I could see being salvaged, but at the moment it's an article on a building that's really being used to promote the hotel within the building. SportingFlyer T·C 19:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ladywood House (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)

Could not find any in-depth coverage per WP:NBUILD. Aŭstriano (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, United Kingdom, and England. Aŭstriano (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's no explanation, other than it was once the tallest building in a small city, and user:Bearian/Standards#Estates, developments, and housing projects. If you can show a reliable source that a thousands of people live there, ping me. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I thought I could save this, but all I have been able to find is this. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gucci Hotel (Dubai) (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)

Lacking updates for 15 years; this development project appears to have been abandoned/cancelled, as since 2010, there have been numerous reports of a "first Gucci hotel in Dubai", like [2]. Ultimately no concrete evidence this Hotel was anything more than a thought, since it certainly doesn't exist today. There are a lack of sources on this concept, doesn't pass WP:GNG. jolielover♥talk 05:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 05:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with fire. No concrete evidence, no concrete poured, no concrete reason for the article's continued existence. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Plantbaseddiet (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Any time an article created in 2010 still says in 2025 expected to open … by the end of 2010, that indicates either a complete lack of either significant coverage or a lack of any interest in adding any later significant coverage… but usually the former. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Well, there was an instagram post [3] last year, so maybe it will open? Whole lot of speculation for something that either never happened, or is going to happen, sometime... Either way, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I had a feeling that Gucci, a company known for careful use of its brand, wouldn't slap it onto some black box hotel in Dubai and I was right, Elisabetta has no association with Gucci outside being a distant great-granddaughter and was sued for trademark misuse and like many a Dubai project, this died (though she keeps trying to figure out ways to start it back up again). And an AI image from a promotional Instagram certainly isn't a source. Nathannah • 📮 23:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hotels in Dubai were good enough for Versace, Armani and Bulgari... just sayin' :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This has never existed, and the fact that someone once thought of creating it but didn't is not, and never has been, notable. (The article should have been deleted in 2017, in response to a PROD as non-notable, but for some reason Northamerica1000 disagreed.) JBW (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability not demonstrated. Google search returns only estate agent listings of apartments in the building. The two sources only describe it in passing (where the first link can be found on The Internet Archive}. Tæppa (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is on the London Borough of Ealing's heritage list who give it a detailed description. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tæppa (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Philafrenzy. Althogh it's actually Enfield, not Ealing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wael Al-Masri (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)

promotional article. فيصل (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Jordan. فيصل (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Given that an administrator of Arabic Wikipedia believes that notability outside of promotional material has not been established, I am inclined to agree. I cannot validate sourcing in English to any degree that shows notability, and it would require a lot of cleanup to get this page in working order. Nonetheless, I think it could Return to Draftspace. PickleG13 (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this guy is notable. The article itself definitely needs some work, but the subject himself meets WP:GNG based on the sourcing in the article and elsewhere. [4] [5] [6]. Cremastra (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever happens, it's currently written like a CV, and needs considerable cleanup. The sources don't look bad, though. SportingFlyer T·C 19:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Patrick Church (Wyandotte) (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)

Apparently non-notable parish church in metro Detroit. The only source provided is an official parish history, which is obviously non-independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing usable except a local news piece on its 155th anniversary, which is not enough on its own for a WP:GNG pass as a standalone page. Open to a redirect to List_of_churches_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Detroit#South_Region, where it is mentioned, but bringing it to AfD since it has already been draftified and returned to mainspace without improvements, so I didn't think a WP:BLAR was appropriate in that situation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Christianity, and Michigan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I found more in a WP:BEFORE search including sources from 1890: [7]. The book Catholic Churches of Detroit (Godzak, 2004) may not quite be SIGCOV, but there's good mention in Irish in Michigan (Metress & Metress, 2006). I stopped searching there. This absolutely needs better sources, I'm not yet convinced it's a keep but if it's not it's not too far off. SportingFlyer T·C 08:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list article recommended by Dclemens1971. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Arnhem city fire (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. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. No WP:SUSTAINED coverage. XYZ1233212 (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Events, and Netherlands. XYZ1233212 (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SIGCOV, LASTING, and PERSISTENCE. There is nothing routine about huge fires in city centers of the Netherlands that wipe out a huge block of buildings. 25 buildings destroyed, including a national and several city monumental buildings are major IMPACTs. This article, part of sustained coverage, literally states that the impacts are lasting. Coverage is SUSTAINED and ongoing from March, with the most recent articles published just hours ago.[8][9] Unclear why this was nominated. There is a stated rationale yet it isn't correct. gidonb (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All coverage is breaking news about the fire itself or updates since then. A dearth of retrospective analysis. "It feels important" does not confer notability. There's also a WP:NOPAGE argument, as there's no valid justification for this to not be covered at Arnhem if better sourcing is found (is it not mentioned there because it's not important, or because it is important but we instead opted for bragging rights of a "new" article?). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 14:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It feels important" does not confer notability. Sure, but that is stating the obvious. The case for keeping is based on SIGCOV, LASTING, and PERSISTENCE. Merging would create UNDUE. There is no WP:NOPAGE argument. gidonb (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree the sources in the article are all near in time to the event, but it's still in the news three months later, which clearly passes WP:LASTING. See [10] [11] (looks like the first one is already linked above). There's no other reason for deletion given, either, and I am not really sure why this is up for deletion when the sustained coverage is so obvious. SportingFlyer T·C 08:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI, just today two articles were published in national news about the fire "Suspects of fire in Arnhem city centre remain in custody, stood 'screaming on balcony' when they heard sirens", "Remains of medieval walls demolished after city fire Arnhem" (although the latter was published by regional news on a national news site). Dajasj (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Breaking news was published, which is irrelevant. WP:RSBREAKING. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would these articles be "breaking" if the coverage continuous three months after the fire? Are you aware that the Netherlands has highly developed mass media and institutions of higher learning, and that people publish articles and books all the time in the Netherlands? Your reactions create the impression that you throw random stuff against the wall. gidonb (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete This is all local coverage of the sort one would expect of a substantial fire in any city. Maybe it should be merged into the city article itself, but A bunch of buildings burned, some were historic, it was sad, life went on, the buildings will be replaced or rebuilt, people may be prosecuted, but all in all it's the sort of thing that happens from time to time in any city. It isn't as though the central business district was leveled, and even then, one could make a very good argument for briefly and proportionately covering such a huge catastrophe in the city's history. This is nothing of such scale. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Mangoe (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a ridiculous argument. NOTNEWS replies only to the routine. This was a major incident which was picked up by international media in the AP, UAE, Canada, and Malaysia [12] [13] [14] [15] and continues to receive ongoing coverage. The follow-up received international coverage in at least China: [16]

  Compare to this routine fire of a house in the same city from 2023 which only appeared in local news and had no follow-up coverage, which is exactly what we apply WP:NOTNEWS to. SportingFlyer T·C 07:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with SportingFlyer. 1) It’s not local news coverage, and if so it’s not a valid reason. 2) It’s not only about the sources in the article but about all sources that exist. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This disaster has a major impact in The Netherlands, with still ongoing coverage in the main national news outlets. Disaster meeting each aspect of WP:NEVENT with a main lasting effect. If I take for instance a look in reliable sources of only last week: About the cause, About suspects, About the location and its future, About the medieval walls, About the trial, Description of suspects. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A major event in the Nl which has continued to receive coverage, as per above. Djflem (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per the sources identified by gidonb and SportingFlyer, the subject meets at least the first two points of WP:EVENTCRITERIA. With WP:SIGCOV three months after the event, I would argue that it's WP:LASTING. I'm also mystified by the WP:NOPAGE assertion - there's no justification for it.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per sources above. Svartner (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Roofing Contractors 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 that was redirected to Reid Ribble. Ribble was only president for 2 years and his article contains no information on what this association is/did. Article created by a single purpose account.

A search in google news only comes up with roofing related sources which are not independent for meeting WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added several references. LeapTorchGear (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A number of added sources are from primary sources such as "Roofing Contractor". LibStar (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Roofing Contractor ISSN 1098-1519 is a reliable, independent and secondary source published by bnp media. LeapTorchGear (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Let's hope we get some more participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with the nom in toto, and assuming good faith, if the only resources editor's including User:LeapTorchGear could find are primary in nature, then it is unlikely that there is any true value to keeping the page up. I would also raise that even if it suddenly was mentioned extensively in secondary sources, it still wouldn't be of much value to a Wikipedia reader. Foxtrot620 (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nativity of the Virgin Mary Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral, Sterling Heights, Michigan (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 building doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. I added the only sources I could find to the article, and the only secondary source with significant coverage is Mactel Australian Macedonian News, which looks tenuously reliable to me. There may be significant coverage in Macedonian language sources. No obvious redirect targets. Suriname0 (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, North Macedonia, and Michigan. Suriname0 (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content itself is mostly generic info about the church and a piece of trivia about it. No indication as to why it is relevant in itself, probably best to include information about it in the Macedonian Orthodox Church linked in the article itself. 37.211.69.56 (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Suriname0 (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To my knowledge we have never deleted a single article about a cathedral of a significant denomination. Don't see any reason why we should start now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi User:Necrothesp, this is my first nom of a building, so I'm glad to hear from an editor experienced in the space. Can you point me to the notability guideline you're using? I only see WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING, neither of which seem to be met here. Suriname0 (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Merely precedent and the fact that cathedrals are by definition significant buildings, so I think WP:COMMONSENSE could be said to apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Reasons to keep: Cathedral, over 50 years old. Reason to delete: not a huge amount of sources independent of the denomination. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: I don't like arguing that there's presumed notability, but we have verified that the cathedral is real and part of a major denomination (as opposed to a denomination of eight people with a house they call a cathedral). A good AtD option should deletion look more likely is redirecting to Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of America and Canada, the diocese that the cathedral is the seat of. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of America and Canada: I am as likely as Necrothesp to lean toward keeping an article on a cathedral of a major church tradition, but I don't think that's the best option here -- precisely because I don't think we can currently verify it is a cathedral. The church's website uses the name church for it, with one brief mention to cathedral in its history. Same with MACTEL. A search of the book South Slavs in Michigan doesn't turn up a reference to its being a cathedral. Meanwhile, our article on the diocese says that another church is the cathedral: Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary, Reynoldsburg. The diocese's website is long dormant and auto-translate isn't working well on the archived version so it's hard to verify with that source. In the absence of strong evidence that this church is indeed the cathedral or a recognized co-cathedral I don't think we even have grounds for an WP:IAR keep so I am going with an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect InvisibleUser909 (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would anyone like to reconsider their !votes in light of Dclemens's findings?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per its long history, reasonable population and being the headquarter of a recognized diocese. Patre23 (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I thank User:Dclemens1971 for their detective work. I don't know the definition of a "cathedral" in this church, although it does seem to be the "bishop's seat" for the diocese. Related: I mentioned this AfD in the AfD for another church in this diocese, where a discussion was started about potentially creating a list for these articles. So, I am a cross-linking here as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Ilija Macedonian Orthodox Church, Mississauga Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator's most recent comment increases the probability that the site is a cathedral (bishop's seat). Let's give this one more go-around, in hope that additional sourcing appears. There is broad agreement that the article can be kept if at least the basic facts can be reliably established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All it says is The bishop's seat is in Sterling Heights -- it doesn't say anything about this church or whether it is a cathedral. For all it says, it may mean that the bishop just lives in Sterling Heights. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional definition of a cathedral just is the seat of the bishop. Regardless, I think demonstration of significant coverage is needed to close this as keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A church building from the 70s isn't likely to be architecturally significant at this point in time, and the lack of anything other than routine sourcing seems to confirm that. Things happen at the church is about the extent of sourcing... I can only bring up obituaries. Lack of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We don't actually have enough sources showing this comes anywhere close to GNG, which is ultimately more important than the "this should probably be notable" keeps. Almost everything here is a primary source!! SportingFlyer T·C 19:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If not kept, should probably be redirected to Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of America and Canada to mirror the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Ilija Macedonian Orthodox Church, Mississauga, so that the page history can be incorporated into a future list article. Suriname0 (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2025 (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)