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

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. Although there is consensus that the topic is theoretically notable, there is a compelling policy-based reason to nonetheless delete the current content: the unrebutted argument that all cited sources are unreliable, which makes the content fail WP:V. Almost everything is cited to SkyscraperPage, a user-edited website that clearly fails WP:SPS. Core policy, which local consensus cannot override, mandates that we must delete material that we cannot verify through reliable sources. Sandstein 14:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Fuzhou[edit]

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

Zero buildings with articles, all sources are unreliable. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No notable entries, unreliable sources. Ajf773 (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We keep, develop lists of tallest buildings in major cities, and even in pretty small cities in the U.S. and Europe. This is one of (about 32?) provincial capitals in China, and the population was 7,115,370 in 2010. Probably bigger than NYC by now. We also consider any buildings over about 100 meters to be individually notable, I think. This includes a 273 meter tall building. It and other entries are going to be individually notable. Sure it can be tagged for sources and development, but this is notable and important and there will exist sources, though maybe not conveniently in English in webpages found easily by a few Americans who happen to be looking at this AFD right now. --Doncram (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The city was bigger than every U.S. city besides NYC in 2010! Has taller buildings than any in List of tallest buildings in Boston. City has greater population than Massachusetts and 37 other U.S. states. Okay to delete this if will simultaneously delete all of the corresponding List of tallest buildings in Wisconsin etc.! --Doncram (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep After all, this city has more people than every city in America except NYC. If a list of tallest buildings in, say, Indianapolis is notable (it is) than a city in china over 7 times its size absolutely deserves an article. This is a way to help expand the reach of Wikipedia into more content that is also notable and fits within the goals of an encyclopedia. SuperChris (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Articles are not inherited for the reasons that the topic city is larger than another topic city which has an article covering the same content. Ajf773 (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the cited sources are simple listings of buildings, with their details, such as height. They're like phonebooks. Nothing to indicate that this is a notable subject by itself, or that there's some kind of encyclopaedic interest. The arguments in favor of Keeping are, so far, based on the fact that other, similarly non-interesting stuff exists in Wikipedia; they are irrelevant. -The Gnome (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The notable topic is "tallest buildings", and it is reasonable to split the world-wide list of them by geographical areas, esp. by cities. We don't need to grunge around and try to prove again and again that "tallest buildings in X" is a topic which has separately received reliable coverage. The world-wide list is obviously of interest, and it would be ridiculous to delete randomly one big chunk of it, just because a temporary local consensus of English-speaking editors, perhaps all being Americans, has a brain freeze. --Doncram (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, tall- or tallest-buildings lists possess inherent notability in Wikipedia. Is this what you're saying? And thank you for your kind comments. Most gracious. -The Gnome (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bottom line, this isn't referenced to reliable sources, and a quick web search didn't offer up much for me, either. So that's it, right? Well... I'm nervous about arguing for deletion here, on the grounds of systemic bias. The project has a longstanding practice of accepting these tallest-building lists in places where building heights and history are easily sourced to web-accessible, English-language media. And I think we are right to do so, because Wikipedia is a gazetteer. "Sources must exist!" is explicitly an argument to avoid... but I think sometimes it is the right one to make. Large-city media operations discuss their city's skyline. It is news when major buildings are constructed, and completed. I'd accept those statements as virtual axioms. The principle behind WP:BEFORE is that we should check for likely sources before deletion. And here, the likely sources are from the Fuzhou Daily, Fuzhou Evening News, Southeast Express, and Strait News: the four major newspapers in the city. None of these news organizations has an English-language web presence. I can't even pretend to read Chinese, and Google Translate's skill with the language is deeply inadequate for this sort of task. Heck, I'm not even confident of my ability to identify what website goes with which outlet. I think this is the Strait News and this is the Fuzhou Daily; I can't identify with certainty websites for the other two (if they are even extant publications). Whether they have searchable online archives is far beyond my capacity to judge. If the goal here is to determine that these tallest-building lists need to be re-evaluated for project inclusion as a general principle, that needs an RFC, not an AFD; if the problem is this list, I'm simply unwilling to advocate for deletion until someone with access to the appropriate sources (and the required fluency to evaluate them) can pass judgment. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brute-forcing my way through the Fuzhou Daily site with the help of Google Translate and some lucky guesses on search terms, I'm sort of sure that this is an article explicitly about the most recent round of skyscraper construction in the city. I think. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag for sources and development. A Chinese metropolis is not less notable than any other metropolis in the world. The fact that there are less sources in English does not make the list less notable. EnWiki has worldwide readership, so I warmly ask the help of Chinese speaking editors to find reliable sources and improve this article. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's correct the current article sourcing isn't great, but Fuzhou is in the top 100 in the world for most skyscrapers [1]. Since this is ultimately a language issue, I'm actually going to make a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: there must be sources in Chinese that would get this past WP:GNG on the basis it's similar to other cities which have properly sourced lists. SportingFlyer talk 18:36, 25 May 2018 (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.