Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities with the most high-rise buildings

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 delete. There is both disagreement on the inclusion criteria for the list and about the reliability of the principal source, but the key argument offered here is that there is apparently little or no discussion of the "list topic", cities with the most high-rise buildings, which would imply that WP:NLIST is not met. The keep arguments have for the most part not addressed the point, or it's not clear from the arguments that it is actually addressed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities with the most high-rise buildings[edit]

[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)

There are several problems with this list. First and most importantly it relies on a single source, emporis.com which is not reliable and therefore fails WP:V, see WP:RSN#Emporis.com. Even if we were to find another source, how do we define a high-rise? The definition currently used comes from emporis.com. We also already have a List of cities with the most skyscrapers which uses a definition from a reliable source. Rusf10 (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First per WP:CFORK of List of cities with the most skyscrapers, secondly due to the level of sourcing... almost every source comes from a single source that appears unreliable therefore fails WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It list far more buildings than the skyscraper article. The source seems to be reliable. They are covered in mainstream media. Just look at the year by year listing of news articles about them [1] This seems quite encyclopedic to anyone studying information about cities or highrises. Dream Focus 23:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is mentioned in the press does not make it reliable. We've already established that emporis.com is WP:UGC and should not be used as a source.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only person in that discussion that said it was unreliable, all others who commented said it was. You stated in that discussion that thousands of Wikipedia articles reference it already, so a lot of editors believe its reliable. So do the major news sources that use it. They take data from government sources among others, it not just user generated. Dream Focus 03:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, high-rise and skyscraper are not synonyms so CFORK does not apply here. They are very different things – much smaller buildings qualify as high-rise than qualify as skyscraper. In principle, I am for keeping the page, but I have to agree that emporis.com is not reliable. They almost certainly have good information on major skyscrapers, but, for instance, they seem to think that there are 22 houses in Kualar Lumpar. This can only mean that users have only bothered to submit data on 22 houses, not that that's all the houses that there are there. That in turn can mean that the data is seriously skewed by the level of activity of their users in various countries, at least for categories other than major skyscrapers. So besides the reliability issue of a source with user generated content there are clearly going to be statistical biases that make a ranking list highly inaccurate. SpinningSpark 00:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please explain what the difference between "skyscraper" and "high rise" is. Ajf773 (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A rule of thumb is that if a fire truck ladder can't reach a window and tap water needs to be repressurized and (I think) they can't ignore wind anymore when designing (at least in places where windstorms don't get as bad like Europe or Oakland) that's a high rise. Skyscrapers start much higher at 500 feet or 150 meters and wind is the primary structural difficulty. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be using the Emporis definition which can be found here. Various other definitions are given in our High-rise building article. The Emporis definition of "skyscraper" is here. SpinningSpark 12:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. –dlthewave ☎ 02:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:LISTN, could not find any independent sources that discuss cities with the most high-rise buildings. Even the Emporis list, which the article cites heavily, is about an entirely different topic: Instead of simply counting the number of high rises, each building is given a score based on its floor count. This means that we are combining and arranging multiple sources to create our own list, in violation of WP:SYN, and assigning ranks that are not published in any reliable source.

Even if the data were reliably sourced, combining multiple sources into one list introduces a large potential for error. Despite being factually correct, different sources (and different Emporis pages) have varying levels of completeness, inclusion criteria and up-to-dateness. An apples-to-apples comparison is not going to be possible unless a single reliable source performs and publishes the necessary rigorous research.

As an aside, the list is rife with factual errors. It seems that Sydney and Tyumen are tied for #67 with 872 and 1,078 high-rises respectively, just edging out Greater Noida and Bangalore which are tied for #68 at 850 and 1,067. –dlthewave ☎ 04:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced. WP:NEXIST. WP:Not paper. Nominator ignored Wp:BEFOREand WP:PRESERVE See comments of User:Dream Focus 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user:7&6=thirteenHow can you possible say this is a well-sourced article? Even if emporis.com was reliable (its not), since when is any article that relies solely one one source considered "well sourced"? The policy you are ignoring is WP:V. WP:DON'T PRESERVE is part of our editing policy too and it says to delete unverifiable information.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, Emporis appears to be a user edited/self-published information site. Almost like a fanpage. Ajf773 (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has references and passes GNG. The article is a good landing place/starting place for a researcher looking to research the subject. Lightburst (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources support your GNG assertion, and how do you reconcile Emporis's user-generated content with our reliable source policy? –dlthewave ☎ 14:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST: In assessing the subject one must assess whether reliable sources exist...and they do. A proper ivote accounts for the potential to reference the article with reliable non-trivial secondary sources. An ambitious editor can delve into this subject and improve the article. There are multiple sources which exist to improve this article. A quick search returns a large number of potential sources from reliable outlets like Business Insider, CNN, USA Today the Washington Post etc. (Each editor can do a search on their own: see WP:BEFORE). If one finds Emporis unreliable or incomplete - the information exists to verify. WP:IMPERFECT Lightburst (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you've found sources that you believe should be considered, the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide them. Don't tell us to find the sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Which specific articles from Business Insider, CNN and USA Today did you find? If you list them here, your "keep" !vote will carry more weight and perhaps someone can add them to the article. Simply saying that they exist, without sharing what you searched for and what you found, will not help improve the article. When I searched for cities with the most high rises, there were a number of mainstream media sources in the results (CNN, Forbes, Huffington Post, US News, Washington Post) but none of them were actually related to the topic of the article. I'm curious what sources you found that were on on-topic. –dlthewave ☎ 16:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10 You and I disagree as to the meaning and application of the policies. As the proposer of the AFD, you are supposed to go over all the hurdles before you get to the finish line. The burden of justifying the deletion is on you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN is quite clear on this point. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." I do not have prove that better sources don't exist (and if they do indeed exist, why can't you or anyone else come up with them?)--Rusf10 (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable - emporis is not a reliable source and all numbers are a false precision since we cannot trust emporis to accurately have every 12-story building in its user-generated database. Stop mindlessly citing WP:PAPER, just because we aren't physically printed doesn't mean we must eternally keep anything anyone writes – how about WP:EVERYTHING? Reywas92^Talk 04:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments put forth by Dlthewave. Emporis.com is not a reliable source, and despite the argument that other sources may exist, none appear to have been found that actually discuss cities with the most high-rise buildings as group, thus failing WP:NLIST. Rorshacma (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Poor referencing, redundant. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.