Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SkyscraperPage (4th nomination)


 * 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. no consensus has appeared, and there is no point in further relisting  DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

SkyscraperPage
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete and Salt please especially considering the last AfD was closed as Deleted, as (1) the current links are simply mere mentions actually and then my searches aren't finding anything actually better aside from mentions. Notifying the only still active AfDers and. SwisterTwister  talk  20:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  20:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  20:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete & salt for good measure. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane 2007  talk 02:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Very weak delete, I think the fact that it's spun as a forum first and foremost gives it a bad rap. It is a data mining information website that includes illustrations of its subjects. Also what does it hurt? (A general inclusionist point to note) B137 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – The previous AfD is nine years old, so referring to it seems, erm, out-of-date. On the other hand, the "keep" arguments from the 1st & 2nd AfD are even more pronounced now. Note that there are articles on 8 other Wikipedias and then there is the template Skyscraperpage with more than 700 transclusions. WP:OSE notwithstanding, deleting an article about such a widely used website seems unhelpful. Also: shouldn't Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers have been notified? They list that site under "Resources". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – SkyscraperPage and SkyscraperCity (the larger of the two) repeatedly come up for deletion and one is kept and one is tossed for generally weak and arbitrary reasons. I had suggested merging the two with Skyscraper, but no one found them useful enough to one-liner them on that page - also for arbitrary reasons. Both these sites are like Wikipedia - they are encyclopedias of the worlds skyscrapers and they are referenced in many publications and in articles, here. Are there third party citations beyond footnoting Skyscraper photos and basic specifications, no. Are these "encyclopedias" more encyclopedic than who got 6th place on America's got talent? At the very least, we should treat the sites equally.
 * Merge with Skyscraper – There is little to write about this website (either one) but it probably deserve mention somewhere on Wikipedia. I'd open a new subsection on Skyscraper, or if that seems like too much, list both sites as resources on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.205.145 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are a ton of sources which cite this, which would help notability if it were a publication, but there's just not all that much about it that I can find. It's a difficult search, though, because there are just so many hits. I did find bits at BBC, Globe and Mail, and Gainesville Sun... but that doesn't seem like quite enough. It's ubiquitous enough that I'd like to see more sources rather than delete, but can't sufficiently substantiate a keep !vote. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: these are more convincing, as they discuss the site itself, i.e. Globe & Mail, but I'm still not sure this amounts to an encyclopedic notability, rather than a curio being discussed as a niche topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep the hits on even a basic news search are persuasive.  Note that not merely are the images produces by the site reproduced, but that the site is credited with driving news cycles on new high-rise development in stories like this   and this .  Also, some of the stories already on the page provide RS info about this website.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not find these links persuasive. The forum is mentioned / cited to in the press, but not discussed as an entity. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The ChicagoBusiness link is simply a few paragraphs and it's not actually convincing, the same can be said for the DJCOregon which is simply guiding through what there all is to say about the company, but not substance, it also seems like a questionable source given it hints at local-focused PR. SwisterTwister   talk  19:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment to closer - Considering the previous AfDs, this is not an easy clpse thus this is either best relisted or at least closed (but not as Keep given there is not a significant amount confidently voting as such) and renominated may be best. SwisterTwister   talk  19:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was persuaded by the NYTimes story already on the page "skyscraperpage.com, a Web site that tracks major buildings around the world," this validates the site and provides a useful description of it. (This page gets ~800 hits a month; users apparently want to know what SkyscraperPage is.]] Page is validated by the use of info from this site in books on urban development and planning   by authors including Edward Relph.  There is too much self-sourcing, but there is sufficient reliable, secondary sourcing to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2016 (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.