Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of future tallest buildings

    Add links
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. No consensus would be a reasonable close here just on the numbers. However, many editors called for delete quoting WP:CRYSTAL without explaining that rationale any further. Others rightly pointed out that CRYSTAL does not forbid articles on future events, only unverifiable ones, and verifiability has not been challenged here. The CRYSTAL rationale, by itself, therefore is in my judgement, not a solid policy based rationale. A further argument put forward was that this fails NLIST because such lists are not found in sources. This claim was comprehensively refuted by ScottyWong with evidence.

    A number of participants called for redirect on the basis that the list is duplicated in another article. A couple of participants also said the list should not be at both locations but were easy on which it was. This close does not prevent a future redirect, or removal of the duplicate list from List of tallest buildings. Not duplicating is a good idea, but which way round it should be can be decided by normal editorial discussion and action. It does not need to be resolved here right now. SpinningSpark 07:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    List of future tallest buildings[edit]

    [Hide this box] New to Articles for Deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

    List of future tallest buildings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

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

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 01:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 01:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 01:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestion, I agree with this approach. Maybe simplify the title slightly to List of tallest buildings under construction? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC) On second thoughts, I think the redirect suggested by Vladimir.copic is the best option. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have no strong objection to that, but I don't want to be clear that it captures buildings under construction that have not yet reached any particularly great height, but for which the construction plans envision that result. BD2412 T 02:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How about a redirect instead to List of tallest buildings#Buildings under construction? Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Rename/modify per the above suggestion. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep Just rename it. Most of the things listed have their own articles. Dream Focus 17:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep and rename to List of planned tallest buildings under construction as suggested above by BD2412. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Rename per BD2412. Kerberous (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep, there are certainly notable tall buildings planned. This is not the forum for a rename, and I rather think editors of the list-article would have agonized about its naming at its Talk page before, or at a WikiProject talk page or elsewhere. I think participants voting for a rename here already might know that the wp:RM process for a contested move is appropriate, would get the appropriate notice and attention and expertise applied. Although, frankly, IMO the name is fine. --Doncram (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Renaming is within the valid outcomes for an AfD. If the article isn't limited to "under construction", I think it becomes open slather for buildings that will never get built. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The article is not "slather". I think renaming here in order to change the scope of the well-constructed list article would be inappropriate, too casually done by drive-by editors; changing the scope can/should be discussed at its Talk page. Buildings not under construction can be planned, documented, covered in reliable sources, too. --Doncram (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete per Vladamir.copic. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Weak Keep falls within WP:LISTPURP, potentially could be merged back with a redirect to the section, but that would run the risk of bloating the parent article even if done carefully. Scheduled and expected future events have always been allowed under WP:CRYSTAL when verifiable without original research. While individual under-construction buildings are sometimes never finished, the same could be said for future sporting events or other similar topics, the key is that the event be highly likely to occur, once a project of this scale is initiated sunk costs mean that construction is nearly always continued to completion, hence the glut of towers that often finish after an economic downturn has started. Issues with sourcing for individual entries can be dealt with by normal editing, WP:NOTCLEANUP etc. I'm a bit meh on the rename as it's rather clunky, I think when readers are at this title most will already understand it to be a list of planned tallest buildings under construction without having that spelled out explicitly. A better strategy to avoid well-meaning but detrimental drive-by additions would be a more carefully worded lead, and perhaps a hidden note or two. 81.177.27.61 (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep and rename per the comments above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment Anything beyond currently being under construction (i.e. being approved, being on hold, and so on) is too WP:CRYSTAL-y for my comfort. I have no strong opinions about whether the buildings under construction should be covered at this article (in which case a rename would be called for) or at List of tallest buildings#Buildings under construction, but they shouldn't be covered at both (because then we would have a WP:REDUNDANTFORK). So either keep this article while tightening up the scope (and changing the title) and removing that section from the other article, or delete/redirect this article to that section. TompaDompa (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.4meter4 (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete: as it is already a part of List of tallest buildings defcon5 (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Rename to a better title like List of tallest buildings under construction, and then delete the list at List of tallest buildings#Buildings under construction and link here instead with a hatnote. I don't think that this list violates WP:CRYSTAL, but the current title is strangely worded and I can see how it would make people think that it would. The list clearly states the inclusion criteria at the top, and seems to define a clear threshold for when a building should appear on the list. All other building "concepts" that never even got close to being constructed are included in a different list. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete per Vladimir.copic, TompaDompa and defcon5. List of future tallest buildings is already a part of the more comprehensive List of tallest buildings. List of future tallest buildings fails WP:NLIST because sources haven't covered a group of future tallest buildings. Rather, each source on the current page covers one building. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Heartmusic678: What about these? [1] [2] [3] —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Im not sure the standard notability rule of “if there’s 3+ decent sources it’s notable” applies when the subject is relying on presumed future notability (i.e. predicting that the projects will actually be finished and therefore still notable in the future) and finite past notability (i.e. the fact that the projects were the tallest planned buildings at a certain point in time, in this case 2020). Neither of which is generally a good determinator of notability. Plus the list already exists in its entirety elsewhere on Wikipedia, so what’s the actual purpose of this article? Dronebogus (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Scottywong Thank you. My vote is still delete because the information is already present elsewhere, as Dronebogus and others mentioned. Heartmusic678 (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Sure, you might think that locating the content elsewhere is a better idea, and that's a valid opinion. I don't necessarily agree, but it's a legitimate argument. I was just refuting the notion that "sources haven't covered a group of future tallest buildings", which is apparently not true. If sources are covering these buildings, then they are, by definition, notable. We have articles on solar eclipses that won't happen for 100 years, and we can't be 100% sure that they'll actually happen (i.e. what if aliens come along and blow up the sun), but we're pretty sure. WP:CRYSTAL isn't a license to say "we can't have an article on anything that hasn't happened yet", we just have to be reasonably sure that it will happen. And, if a building is already under construction, I think it's safe to say that we can be reasonably sure that construction will be completed at some point. Of course, there are always exceptions, and we'll never be 100% right. But, considering that the majority of the buildings in this list are bluelinks, I think it's safe to say that notability shouldn't be a major concern here. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_future_tallest_buildings&oldid=1073183663"