Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Lucknow


 * 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Lucknow

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unlike other major cities like Mumbai and Delhi, Lucknow has very little high-rise buildings and does not warrant an article, due to lack of sources available. Secret of success (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sourced list of an Indian provincial capital city. The fact that the biggest buildings here are not taller than the biggest buildings there is irrelevant. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve per WP:NRVE. Topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, and not whether or not sources are present in articles. There's also significant precedent for these types of articles on Wikipedia. For starters, see this search. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Could both of you please point out to the sources available? Both the sources in the article do not have any reliability and cannot be enough to establish notability. Secret of success (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See my comment below for an Emporis source. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete "Sourced list" is a stretch. Half the article consists of a list of 'planned' buildings sourced to the real estate company that is planning those buildings. The other half is sourced to a commercial property website (has anyone read WP:RS lately?). Regardless, maintaining a list with seven buildings makes little sense. --regentspark (comment) 12:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The list has no notable skyscrapers and the tallest building itself is 85 m. If they were notable, the least that would be expected is for them to have a Wikipedia article - and I don't see how any of the buildings listed here pass notability. Do we really need such trivial lists? It is my opinion that such lists should only exist for cities that are notable for high rises.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Theo polisme  17:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)




 * Comment – Here's another source, from Emporis: Buildings in Lucknow. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the above comments. None of the buildings pass the notability test and just the sources from Emporis are not sufficient to maintain the article. Secret of success (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I read the comments above prior to my above comment post, which simply provides another source for editors to consider. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no question of "considering" here, rather it is supposed to be straightforward, does the article pass WP:GNG or not? Since we do not have any sources other than Emporis, which itself has a high amount of suspicion surrounding it, it does not, and hence it should be deleted. Secret of success (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Mar4d. Non-notable list of non-notable buildings. -- ELEKHHT 23:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep An useful list of a fast developing city. Lucknow will surely add many more tall buildings in near future.AnmolSingh0019(talk) 16:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for predicting future notability with understandable optimism, but remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- ELEKHHT 00:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 12:13, 10 September 2012 (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.