Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architects of Supertall Buildings


 * 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The result was keep as the nomination was effectively withdrawn with no outstanding delete opinions. TerriersFan (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Architects of Supertall Buildings

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The user who created this page has recently been making many edits to List of tallest buildings in the world and List of tallest buildings and structures in the world, trying to include all of the information of this article. It serves no purpose, and completely unnecessary. timsdad  (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Personally, I see no reason why this information cannot be included in the lists concerned.  Can you expand on your reasoning for not wanting this? JulesH (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I second JulesH's question. I see no valid reason to call the architects who designed a notable structure in any way unneccesary. This nomination needs further explanation. - Mgm|(talk) 16:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly the topic would be notable. I would point out to the nominator that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that he is not the "owner" of the articles about the buildings.  Reverting edits because one feels that they are inappropriate to an existing article might be defended.  However, trying to bar the infomation from being mentioned somewhere else seems a bit extreme.  Mandsford (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominating an article like this for deletion 4 minutes after it was started seems excessively BITYEy. There is obviously the possibility of significant expansion.DGG (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have converted this into a list and cleaned it up. Plainly it needs much work but that is an editorial matter. I see no reason for deleting a potentially useful page. TerriersFan (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading all of your comments, It's pretty obvious to me that I acted much to quickly and that there is in fact not much reason to delete the article. What annoyed me was that the creator was repeatedly editing the pages I mentioned before, ignoring my reversions and not opening it up to discussion. I do agree that this information is useful, and I have added a link to the article in the 'See also' section of the articles the creator edited, and intend to work on the article in question. -- timsdad  (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, a Keep from me, now. -- timsdad  (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.