Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bizarre 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ without prejudice to the creation of a list on this topic with a more consistent inclusion criterion. Owen&times; &#9742;  00:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

List of bizarre buildings

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Essentially a WP:OR collection of " buildings which are likely to be considered odd, strange or weird to the average observer. " Fram (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 03:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Lists. Fram (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's a pleasing enough list, but I could compile a completely different one, of equal "validity". Dunmore Pineapple, anyone? The problem is that the Category - Most bizarre buildings - is essentially meaningless. Though I'm sure one could find a volume The World's 100 weirdest buildings, or some such, if one looked. But it still wouldn't have any scholarly basis. KJP1 (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep venerable list article created by the Colonel himself - even a Delete voter concedes it's "pleasing". I'd concede that technically, the article may violate WP:OR, unless someone spends a good deal of time improving it with sources. But I dont think stopping articles like this was why our OR policy was created - on balance, seems better to keep the article due to it's pleasing and interesting nature. In my view, we can trust editorial discretion to judge whether to classify buildings as bizarre - a much easier task than balancing competing POVs from WP:RSs to comply with due weight on a controversial topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - While I agree that this is an interesting list, I'm not sure if the current version meets WP:NLIST. There are sources for a few entries, and there is also some coverage in reliable sources, like Architectural Digest, Country Living, and Architecture and Design. However, for the most part this list seems to have been randomly curated, and the inclusion criteria for "bizarreness" is so vague as to be nearly meaningless. For example, several of Gehry's works are listed as "bizarre" just because his style tends toward curving facades. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable take. I see the Colonel is currently adding sources to the article. If you were to re-check the article in a few days, you might see suffient sources for WP:NLIST compliance, & possibly Fram's OR concern may be allayed too. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Bizarre, eccentric, funky, odd, strange, quirky, weird or simply unconventional or unusual" is too hazy, fuzzy, indeterminate, ill-defined and subjective a criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per CF and others. WP:LISTCRIT says, "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources.".  While, yes, you can point to a source and say "omg, this dude called this building weird! it goes on the list!", the very nature of such a tortured, artificial way that this list is trying to maintain inclusion criteria speaks to its fuzzy nature of exactly what should be on it.  Most any sort of object is going to have unusual examples.  We could just as easily come up with List of unusual cars, or animals, or sports, or just about anything.  But none of these would be good lists.  35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Yesterday this was a different list article. It now has very clear definition for inclusion: a reliable source calling it bizarre or a similar word.  It now has 28 reliable sources in the article.  Reliable sources cover these buildings for being unusual.  All but one of the buildings listed have their own Wikipedia article, making it a valid navigational list as well.   D r e a m Focus  16:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are some reliable sources with lists of bizarre buildings. Far more things appeared in a simple, quick search, but this is enough to prove it is notable.
 * Business Insider Most Bizarre Buildings around the world
 * Country Living Unusual Buildings in America
 * Architectural Digest 12 of the Strangest Buildings in the World
 *  D r e a m Focus  16:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Listicles......don't......count.And in any case, as I said immediately above, the inclusion criteria are not clear. They're fuzzy, tortured, and unnatural.  There are no reliable sources for calling something unusual or bizarre.  Why are friggin' Business Insider and Country Living reliable sources for determining the bizarreness of buildings?  Even the Architectural Digest one is still an iffy listicle.  It's just one author's opinion.  This isn't a list of bizarre buildings -- it's a list of buildings that have been called bizarre by someone.  What kind of list is that?  What if another author disagreed?  How would we ever know?  Who would ever go out of their way to call something not bizarre?  35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no rule against what you call "listicles", counting towards notability. Reliable sources are covering unusual looking buildings, that's all that matters.  And if you search for "list of unusual" you'll find many Wikipedia articles exist for such things.  You can find some of them also at Category:Lists of things considered unusual.  The article should be renamed List of unusual buildings to match the existing naming convention.   D r e a m Focus  17:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Listicles are low-quality churn meant to drive clicks. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  Just because there are some articles that should also probably be deleted doesn't mean this one shouldn't be deleted.  And no, it should be renamed to "List of buildings that have been called unusual, bizaare, odd, strange, ...".  Because it's not a list of unusual buildings; it's a list of buildings that have been called unusual.  It's an inherently subjective label with no clear definition.  I'll re-quote the especially important bit from LISTCRIT, "Selection criteria [...] should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." (emphasis mine). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep the list inclusion criteria seem clear and reasonable to me. FWIW, novelty architecture and Storybook architecture are part of the the subset of what you might call "bizarre buildings," which as a classification clearly exhibits overall colorful, asymmetrical, and/or personalized attributes that distinguish them from say neoclassical architecture or brutalist architecture or International Style architecture. I see a lot of Gaudi, Gehry, and "utopian ecovillage" (Matrimandir, Habitat 67) on this list, suggesting that "bizarre" by another name is a form of romantic or otherwise ideological architecture, meaning that it can be clearly defined, if nothing else by what it is not, i.e. hyperrationalized, solely functional design. jengod (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * delete The notion that somehow AD and these other journals are somehow reliable arbiters of what is and is not bizarre is at best strained. AD in particular has pushed Brutalist blockhouses and other structures that the average person in the day thought were quite bizarre. Conversely there are surely plenty of oddities of which the architectural authorities are unaware. And besides, as I am wont to say, in the 21st century, nothing is actually weird anymore, not with (to pick one name) Frank Gehry as someone who routinely competes for projects and from time to time gets to build one. Besides the subjectivity, the subject is profoundly unencyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep nothing is actually weird anymore, but criteria should include overall cultural impact; eg. some architectural awards or something like that..(?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnmbnmbnm (talk • contribs) 08:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - preferably as a "List of lists". This article has existed for 10 years, has very few entries when it could easily have many more. The lead has its guidelines but there is always a subjective element to measuring the degree of unusualness. Several of the current entries are not even close to bizarre (i.e. very unusual), rather simply colorful facades (Hundertwasser). Then there are many hundreds if not thousands of bizarrely-shaped buildings not yet included. To reduce the subjectivity aspect, multiple list articles by category with unique criteria would be a better approach, leaving this article as a "List of lists": List of zoomorphic buildings, ...deconstructionist buildings, ...follies (already a basic list there), ...novelty architecture, ... fairytale buildings, ...buildings using nonstandard construction materials (coral, bottles), etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:88:8100:C270:105E:7825:C360:164E (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How about keep but move to something along the lines of List of unusual buildings? Along the lines of other lists of unusual things e. g. List of unusual deaths, List of unusual minor planets or List of unusual dismissals in international cricket? --Ouro (blah blah) 10:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support proposed move to List of unusual buildings. jengod (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support move to List of unusual buildings if article is kept. Station1 (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: The title aside, it would be nice to reach a consensus about whether the article meets our policies and guidelines for lists. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen&times; &#9742;  01:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to List of unusual buildings. has demonstrated that reliable sources treat the concept as a set or group, and clear inclusion criteria have now been established. WP:NLIST is met. Jfire (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep and retitle per above. I think that we are often too quick to condemn stuff for being fun; in this case it's not really clear that the subject is inherently encyclopedic, just that it's kind of silly. Being silly is serious business! We should take it seriously. jp×g🗯️ 00:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm all for fun Wikipedia articles and such, but an article like this is just too objective for us to keep. There would be a lot of discussion on whether or not a building is "bizarre", some editors would say that a certain building isn't bizarre that's on the list and other editors would want a certain building to be put on the list. Maybe it's possible to rename this to something where we can work with this? ‍ Relativity  02:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: Reeks of WP:OR, with no definable criteria for inclusion. Let&#39;srun (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Having a partially subjective inclusion criteria doesn't mean it's a bad concept. The article is full of sources that note that it's notable when a building looks weird, and each source can only give a subjective opinion to say a building is weird. No different than any other object whose notability comes largely from what people think about it. Compare with other lists that have subjective entries: List of films considered the worst, List of photographs considered the most important or the aforementioned List of unusual deaths. (More examples:) Contrast with List of most-liked tweets which is a measurement standard not available for most concepts. Wizmut (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete – The list does not follow any objective criteria, it is made solely based on opinions without any further basis. Svartner (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete but with the possibility of keeping in some form - the problem here is that even with the narrowed standard, it's not enough of a defining list. But I think it may be possible to define this somehow. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is based on a mishmash of sources with completely different inclusion criteria for what is "unusual". Some sources cover a single building that they happen to characterize as distinct in some way; others are listicles on a subset of "unusual buildings" within one US state, or in Europe, or of a particular type (e.g. skyscrapers); some entries are gardens, some are art installations, some are whole temple complexes, some are treehouses... There is just no coherent theme here, it seems like just about any notable structure would qualify if some RS (including itself...) said it looked strange and an editor agreed. That is not a reasonable NLIST criterion, that's just Atlas Obscura clickbait. JoelleJay (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2024 (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.