Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of megaprojects


 * 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 The result was Keep.(WP:NAC) buffbills7701 20:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

List of megaprojects

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE it seems any "large-scale" project can go in this list, if inclusion criteria where too be made up they would be be in breech of WP:OR and WP:V. What is large scale is Ireland, Iceland may be considered small scale in the UK or USA Gnevin (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Regarding the inclusion criteria in this list article, per the Megaproject article, megaprojects are described as "...typically defined as costing more than US$1 billion and attracting a lot of public attention because of substantial impacts on communities, environment, and budgets." This is also stated in the Definitions section of the List of megaprojects article. It appears that only projects that exceed US$1 billion and attract significant public attention (et al.) are to be listed in the article, per this criteria. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Existence of article Megaproject demonstrates this is a notable concept. While definitions vary between sources, the page offers some criteria which can be applied. Hence it's not indiscriminate. And applying criteria from third-party sources is not original research. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It's notable enough and has a parent page (Megaproject, per Colapeninsula's comment above). Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  15:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to have an adequately defined scope, and the term certainly seems notable enough. You could argue that the list needs sourcing, but that's a local matter and can not be decided here.  I suggest you bring up your concerns on the article's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Discriminate and has a focused inclusion criteria. The topic is also notable, and content is verifiable. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment People are claiming it has a defined scope, it has a arbitrary 1 billion dollar limit invented by some Wikipedian, "attract a lot of public attention" what's a lot? 1 newspaper article 2 ,100?  It has one reference that says "very expensive" , what is that 1 billion ,2 billion or 1 trillion? Gnevin (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete; notability is not the only reason that articles get deleted, of course. I don't doubt that many megaprojects are notable, but the problem with this article is that it's unmaintainable indiscriminate listcruft. It doesn't serve readers, it just's just here for the benefit of editors to increment their edit-count without actually building a complete or meaningful list. The criteria for a "megaproject" are arbitrary, of course, and the bar is set low enough that there are thousands of them. bobrayner (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as of this post the page has received 20,405 page views in October 2013 thus far . This essentially quells the notion that the article doesn't serve readers and only exists for editors to edit upon. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A very long list of high-profile things is likely to get lots of ghits. That doesn't mean that the content is any good, or that it's ever capable of being good. bobrayner (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 23791 views from 1 October to 31 October. During the last 90 days, 64413 people visited the page. If there were around 5 views per day, this would be definitely deleted. But hundreds of views? Keep it. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  15:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A very long list of high-profile things is likely to get lots of ghits. That doesn't mean that the content is any good, or that it's ever capable of being good. bobrayner (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning, I can also nominate List of Stuyvesant High School people for deletion. The only purpose that article has is to list people who went to that school. One wonders why that is even important. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  02:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominate it if you want; I look forward to !voting on Articles for deletion/List of Stuyvesant High School people. However, right now we're on Articles for deletion/List of megaprojects, and non-sequiteurs here don't help your case. bobrayner (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is under the same circumstances. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  22:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Per arguments above. Criteria well defined scope based on reliable sources. If criteria is too low (too many projects) get consensus to raise the bar, that is how we do it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep the article Megaproject shows that the underlying concept is notable and entries in the lists and tables are linked to WP articles; per MOS:LIST and WP:LISTN, this is a well-formed list. With a reasonable threshold, the list is far from indiscriminate. There is some evidence for 1 billion dollars as a threshold; for instance, the Federal Highway Administration puts the threshold for a mega project at 1 billion and claims these projects are "a different breed". If the list becomes too big, we can raise the threshold or split off list articles with regard to types of megaproject. A notable topic, a well formed list and a clear threshold for inclusion in the list all point to keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Given Mark above located support for the 1 billion threshold and the list is notable and useful. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete OR with arbitrary selection MatsTheGreat (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by 'arbitrary selection'? Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  15:46, 31 October 2013 (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.