Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of construction sites in Seattle

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  30 June 2005 13:39 (UTC)

List of construction sites in Seattle
How is this possibly an encylopedia article? And what happens when construction is finished? RickK 07:30, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - What a waste of cyber space--Porturology 07:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, don't be an ass Porturology. There are lots of other lists like List_of_companies_based_in_Seattle as well as a huge List_of_racial_slurs. What is wrong with one about new constructions? It can be used as a reference. When construction is finished, it would be moved to the Recent Construction section and eventually deleted. - Author of the article in question
 * Comment: Unsigned comment above from 67.182.137.87 -- Longhair | Talk 08:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete useless and unmaintainable list. --Angr/undefined 08:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it is useless, although, maybe not the best for WP.
 * Comment: Unsigned comment above from 67.182.137.87 -- Longhair | Talk 08:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Good luck completing and maintaining this. Gamaliel 08:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grr. I would like to be a helpful WP member, but you guys aren't giving me constructive criticism. What part of the WP laws am I braking? I looked over all the pages trying to find something that would invalid this type of page, but I couldn't. If you would just point something definitive out (some reason why this doesn't belong on WP), I'd be more than happy to leave, but so far it just seems like people's personal opinions. - 67.182.137.87
 * Here's some. An encyclopedia is not the place for lists of local information that needs to be constantly updated.  That is a lot of effort for something of relatively little informational value and that really doesn't fit the mission of this project.  Are there enough people who are informed and interested in this subject to perform that effort? Who will finish this list?  Who will maintain it?  Most likely this will remain the short, incomplete list that it is.  Gamaliel 09:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gamaliel. I was looking for some advice about why it wasn't a very good article, because I would like to be a helpful member. That said, I would work on the article as I travel around town, but this was all the info I had at the top of my head when I started. When trying to become a better WP member, I don't appreciate attacks from people like Porturology. That just frustrates me and gives me a sense that WP is full of elitists. I'm glad there are some on here who would help someone out. BTW, I have created and made slight modifications to pages under my username, but I'm not logged into that. -67.182.137.87
 * Plenty of ways to help listed at Template:Opentask. Also things like filling in redlinks from these pages, WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, Category:Wikipedia missing topics, Gray's Anatomy images with missing articles, WikiProject Countering systemic bias, and/or User:Jerzy/Red Links from LoPbN. More ideas: Contributing to Wikipedia and Guide to improving articles; also, helping patrol Recent changes and Newpages for vandalism, pranks, etc. is always helpful. I think many people would argue that the 'under construction' article falls under 'news reports' or 'current events' in What Wikipedia is not--an encyclopedia is generally more oriented towards collecting information that is relatively timeless. Niteowlneils 17:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete -- unmaintainable forever changing list. - Longhair | Talk 11:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, unmaintainable. Better to go visit the local planning authority. -Splash 15:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: In the case of lists, they need to be comprehensive and finite, and they should be of encyclopedic value. In this case, the list is phrased in the present tense, and construction sites are eternally changing.  I.e. it is an infinite list (as the "present" keeps moving), but it is of encyclopedic value.  You would be better off with "major construction sites in Seattle 2005," but you'd still have trouble with the information being found by anyone or linking it to an existing article.  Geogre 19:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment But your suggestion would be a way to document major constuction projects in a given year. That could provide a way to trace the early history of these projects that can be liked to if you get an encylopedic building.  The question is, Is this worth putting in a list?  I'm not sure at this point, but I'm probably leaning against.  Vegaswikian 07:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 03:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. --W(t) 07:21, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
 * Delete. Every building that isn't prefab was once a construction site. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Gazpacho 03:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.