Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of future tallest buildings in the world


 * 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 no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

List of future tallest buildings in the world

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Do we really need this? There is already a List of tallest buildings in the world. Or maybe merge? Fauzan  ✆ talk  ✉ email  10:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm holding off on !voting for now. This is a new article that was created today at 10:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC) (per the article's Revision history). The author should be allowed time to add sources to the article, which is unsourced as of this post. Perhaps this nomination may have been a little hasty? NorthAmerica1000 12:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge I see no reason, and none has been given in the article, to have a separate article on just "future buildings" (esp. as this list includes all of the "current" buildings as well). The list of current tallest buildings could certainly include any currently planned but not yet completed buildings without need for a separate article.    KDS 4444   Talk  12:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete As being totally unsourced. The burden is with the article creator, and by looking at their edit history, is reasonably experienced. Or maybe move to their sandbox so they can source this list before pushing it back into the article space.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I created this article as it's content cannot be found anywhere else on Wikipedia. Additionally, there is no other suitable place for such content, as the list of tallest buildings in the world is already cluttered, and often changes are made to that page to reflect personal opinions on what should or should not be included, such as long since cancelled buildings being included as an individual feels their country should be included, or heights being inconsistent so that an individual's country could seemingly be elevated over another. I have since updated the page, as I had no prior chance to do so, assuming that given it was a brand new article that no one would notice it in the meantime. I have put much work into this article and hope it remains as its content is such that I have previously been disappointed in being unable to find. I therefore feel it is appropriate in its current format, as it provides information which was currently unavailable on Wikipedia, on an important topic, which could not be reasonably merged or placed elsewhere. LabradorGroupTalk 20:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or at least merge. It's a useful and notable list. From Notability: "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." The way I read that, as long as the author can find a few reliable sources talking about future tallest buildings, then this list meets the notability requirements. Orser67 (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like a great, useful list, and the topic is notable.  Some editing would improve the article, e.g. remove focus on already-built ones, lead with the future ones, mention the table includes already built ones for comparison.  Also "built" as title for column including mostly forward "to be built" dates seems odd, should be changed.  I like the sortable table for making comparisons, but the default order upfront should be the date, so all the future ones show up first in order.  Editing suggestions are offered for Talk page discussion and to help others perhaps see that the topic is notable and valid though current presentation is a little unusual.  Good luck with further development! -- do  ncr  am  01:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 *  Keep . I don't think there will be any problem with sources. But first we should have a consensus on what exactly should be meant by future. I think we should count such buildings which are under construction or have been finalized. Existing tallest buildings, like Burj Khalifa and Makkah Royal Clock tower can be italicized in the list without rank for clarity, as they already have a place in the other list. The current colour scheme might be inverted to grey out existing structures Proposed structures may not be included.  --  Fauzan  ✆ talk   ✉ email  05:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 *  Keep if ...  Redirect: the existing structures are removed or at least grayed out as explained above and shown below. Else redirect. -- Fauzan  ✆ talk   ✉ email  09:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would we have this list of FUTURE buildings if the current buildings are included, too? GRUcrule (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant to say if they are included, as currently, existing structures do appear in the list. -- Fauzan  ✆ talk   ✉ email  12:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - While the sourcing could stand improvement, the article passes WP:LISTPURP as a structured list that is a functional navigational aid. NorthAmerica1000 07:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just to add to my reasons for creating this list, it is supposed to provide an idea of what the list of tallest buildings in the world will look like in the future, which would include all currently completed buildings, alongside all under construction or topped out buildings. The reason I kept them alongside is that in removing built skyscrapers the list would merely become a list of under construction or topped out buildings, which would fail to provide any real depiction of what the list of world's tallest buildings will look like in the future. The list was essentially supposed to resemble the CTBUH 'The Tallest 20 in 2020: Entering the Era of the Megatall' report, and resembles the '100 Future tallest buildings in the world' list on the Skyscraper Center by CTBUH, with the notable exclusion being the absence of Proposed buildings, as they regularly fail to make it to the construction stage, and as such wouldn't be a fair representation of the future tallest buildings. LabradorGroupTalk 20:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * N.b. struck duplicate !vote (only one is allowed). However, feel free to comment in the discussion all you'd like. NorthAmerica1000 18:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of tallest buildings in the world, which already has sections for "Skyscrapers under construction" and "Skyscrapers on-hold". I think that a case could be made to include incomplete buildings in the main list, too, but that's probably been proposed before. ansh 666 05:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I appreciate the work that has gone into this, but per Ansh666 I can't see that this list has a substantially different criterion for inclusion than the "under-construction" section of the main list.  The author has stated a motivation for this article is incessant POV edit warring at the main article.  Sorry, that makes this a WP:POVFORK and is grounds for deletion in itself.  I don't think a redirect would be useful: it is not a likely search term.  Spinning  Spark  18:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Ansh666. If I'm looking for a building that ranks among the tallest in the world, what am I going to search for? No reason it can't be had in the list already created. GRUcrule (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete A test for articles about the future is will people in twenty years have an interest in what people in 2014 thought the future of tall buildings would be.  There is not a stable topic here to which the test can be applied.  This article intends to be unstable, never is there anything the future will be able to look back upon with interest.  Wikipedia is not a webhost and it is not a newspaper.  Obviously the article also fails WP:CRYSTAL.  See WP:Alternative outlets.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep : Informative article, it includes a number of newly discovered or revealed data.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 05:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing here that isn't already in List of tallest buildings in the world and anything that isn't there can easily be added.  Spinning Spark  21:33, 3 April 2014 (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.