Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supertall

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 and editorial redirect to Megastructure. The arguments that this term is supposedly widely used in sources does not address the WP:WINAD issue, and since these sources are not cited, we cannot ascertain their reliability or even, per WP:V, that they use "supertall" in the same sense as this article. Sandstein 07:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Supertall

The article admits this term is a made up word in the blogosphere. It also admits there is no official definition of this term. WP:NOT wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day, or on a blog one day.Due to this it fails WP:V before it even gets going. If there is any useful information in regards to some of the individual subjects (skyscrapers, radio towers, etc) that isn't already on the parent articles this can be moved prior to the closing of the AfD. Picking a redirect would be impossible because it does cover many individual topics hence why I'm nominating the term itself for deletion and not suggesting a split. Crossmr 15:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as I see nothing to get it past WP:NEO Corpx 17:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete second line in the lead says it all: "It is especially common jargon among skyscraper-enthusiast bloggers." Not a single reference to suggest that, either... Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 17:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, term has been in formal use since at least 1984 (NYT, Phil Inq and remains in current use (Google News, Google News Archive. At worst merge and redirect to skyscraper. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  That first link is "supertail"...the rest look fine. But the article will need massive clean-up and rewrite to conform with sources.--Crossmr 22:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Even the New York Times has trouble with OCR. Google, however, was unfazed. --Dhartung | Talk 04:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, becauser term appears to be used by various people to describe "supertall" skyscrapers and as these structures continue to be built, article will likely continue to grow and develope. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, term is used in various sources per above. These sources should be cited in the article. --Hdt83 ^Chat 21:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The term is used enough to qualify for inclusion. Captain panda 21:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Often used in reliable news media. User:Krator (t c) 23:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Okay, "supertall" is not the most imaginative name for a structure of great height, but I'm not sure what to expect from a "skyscraper enthusiast blogger", and I guess not everything is going to be scraping the sky. This is a good start for an article. Maybe the author can take some of the "skyscraper books" off of her supershort bookshelf and add some citations. Mandsford 13:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  If supertall can only be found in direct reference to taller than usual skyscrapers, the rest of the material from the article needs to be removed.--Crossmr 14:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Agreed, the article is rife with WP:OR and WP:POV problems, despite basic notability. One of the issues here seems to be claques for various specialized structures like masts; there was a huge pool of unnotable mast articles that was AFD'd last year. I don't know if the "masties" are still active, but there is much less written about masts than about skyscrapers. --Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete:I agree that supertall doesn't warrant it's own page. Skyscraper exists, I like the idea of possibly a redirect as stated by Dhartung. Other pages specific to an example of a "supertall" structure most certainly label themselves as "world's tallest bridge, tower, building, dam, etc and whatever. Even second tallest, third tallest, tallest until, and tallest since, tallest planned - are popular in wik articles and are definitely worth noting. But an article about an adjective used to describe these buildings? I recommend possibly including "supertall" as a wiktionary entry only as it really is a vocabulary lesson at best, not encyclopedic (it already exists in very rudimentary form [[1]]) All that being said, it can't be properly referenced because its an adjective, anymore than me saying, for example, "I found my own (trust me, it's unusual) last name on 23,000 google sites, therefore I should have my last name as a wik article because of it's extensive use for the last 67 years, blah blah blah." How do you cite an adjective? Are any of the citations dictionaries? Or are they just redirects to really tall structures? Just because it's used by a mag or rag somewhere does not justify an encyclopedic article. And what about the subjectivity? To my 18 month old son or Verne Troyer , everything including the kitchen counter is supertall. Is it even an earned label? Is it given officially? "You are now Supertall", almost like being knighted. The only sources here are to the NYT's "supertail buidlings" (no kidding), 1984 "dreamy-eyed" article about futurama style buildings that don't exist yet, and to google searches that used "supertall" and "skyscraper" as search words instead of just "supertall", and one of the google links actually says "did you mean super-tall?" I say delete, or at best redirect to skyscraper Keeper76 00:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Slightly weak keep. I was the one who originally removed Crossmr's prod of this page... I thought it deserved more consideration as a sort of summary-of-tall-things page, even if a page just about the word supertall wasn't appropriate. I've been thinking about it since then, and I just can't decide for sure what should be done with it. It needs a lot of work on style and referencing, and there's the question of whether the word is used enough for it to actually be what we call the page, but I'm still inclined to think that such a summary page should exist to guide users to the more specific pages, and this seems like a worthwhile start. Pinball22 16:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Having Googled 'Super Tall Building' I see that the term (often hyphenated 'Super-Tall') is pretty widely used in news articles and in some architectural/construction sites. If kept, article clean-up and better referencing would be needed. VJDocherty 10:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism and not encyclopaedic. NBeale 23:00, 15 September 2007 (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.