Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tallest structures by category

Tallest structures by category

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The encyclopedia already has many, many articles listing tall buildings. The encyclopedia also has many categories related to tall buildings.

This new article has several issues: (a) does not conform to proper title convention (should be "List of ..."); (b) 90% of the facts (rows) do not have any citation validating the facts of the row; and most importantly: (c) this list is duplicative of all the other "tall building" lists already in the encyclopedia... every time a new record is broken, this is one more list to update.

If the consensus is to keep this list, at a minimum it must be properly sourced. There is no lack of sources in the other, existing List articles. Noleander (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the above AfD as part of WP:NPP effort. After making the post, I see another editor, User:Remsense had similar thoughts two weeks ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tallest_structures_by_category&diff=1289324742&oldid=1289202581 Remsense deleted the article and replaced it with a redirect to List of tallest buildings and structures. Then, the article creator returned and re-created the article.

Probably should do that same "Delete and redirect" action again. Noleander (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Although if you'd like to change the article name to List of tallest structures by category, I have no objection to that.

The article says, for example, that the tallest clock tower is the Abraj Al Bait, at 601 meters. It links to an article with a list of the tallest clock towers, and another article all about the Abraj Al Bait. Those other articles have sources. Although if you'd like to add sources here too, I'd be in favor of that.

It's true that this article is a bit duplicative of all the other lists. But I think it's useful having a single article like this to combine them all, and see how each category compares to the other. One more list to update isn't that big a deal.

For those who are just joining us, this article used to be a single section of a larger article titled List of tallest buildings and structures. Here is how it looked when they were together. But it didn't really have anything in common with the rest of that article (which was the history of the world's tallest structures), so this section was recently made into a separate article of its own, and the remainder had its name changed. Remsense thought they should stay together, rather than being separate articles, which we discussed. But I don't think anyone has previously suggested it should be deleted altogether. This information has been on Wikipedia at its prior location for a long time. It does lack references, but it's a good article, it's been pretty high profile, and a lot of people have contributed to it. - Burner89751654 (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Comparing tall things -- the great human preoccupation. 2600:8806:2A05:1100:1097:AFF5:4FE9:E15F (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's no real reason for deletion given here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"....this list is duplicative of all the other "tall building" lists already in the encyclopedia". Noleander (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This isn't a new article, it's a very longstanding article that's been split out to a new name. I don't believe it's duplicative, the creator has been working on improving organziation of tallest building lists recently. More sources are certainly needed but there's no basis for deletion given. Reywas92^Talk 04:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]