Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest buildings in the United States

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. WP:NOR is a core policy, and it is uncontested that this content is OR, so it cannot be kept, including in the history. Sandstein 17:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest buildings in the United States[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)

This list is entirely original research. It appears to have been computed from coordinate data (as far as I can tell -- the map doesn't seem to offer the area itself) entered in an openly-editable database. Many of the entries that I checked were edited by a username similar to that of the main contributor to this article as well. Moreover, that these are in fact "the largest" is also unverifiable -- there's no way to tell if entries are missing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: AfD created on behalf of User:35.139.154.158, per request at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC) )[reply]

Note I think I am the lone author of the article. It goes against WP:OR and probably a whole slew of other policies. You might be able to find some sources to support the existence of the article, but I am not sure whether they would support the contents. I don't really care if it is deleted as I copied the data to my computer.
I would say WP:CALC applies to the surface area calculations, as the area of a 2d shape is something learned in primary school. I will claim the list is accurate/comprehensive as of ~2017/2018, but that is obviously not WP:VER to anyone else.
I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. List of largest buildings is in terrible shape as it is nowhere near comprehensive and many of the sources are published/paid for by the architect/owner of the buildings. It would probably benefit from the same set of eyes reviewing this article. Karsonkevin2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that honest response. Certainly List of largest buildings also needs scrutiny, for similar reasons: I've linked this discussion on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of largest buildings, duplicative bad copy. Dronebogus (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there are obviously WP:CALC considerations to be made for the footprints of the buildings themselves, it doesn't seem like there is a reason why it'd be too hard to find sources on the size of individual buildings. The topic of largest buildings by footprint itself seems to be pretty well covered around the WWW (some more detailed information is here as well). This is just a cursory look from a couple minutes of searching on Google; but even then, you can see there is a lot of information about the subject of big-ass buildings. It's true that this article is kind of unimpressive as it stands (it would be nice to see citations to some stuff like what I just linked, for example) but I don't think deletion is a solution to this problem. jp×g 10:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The question I have is whether or not redirecting this article to List of largest buildings is a good idea if that article is in worse shape than this one is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rewrite from ground up. I think a list like this would be quite noteworthy in itself, yet still, it needs to be based on reliable sources. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Follwup comment from nominator. The two keeps above make no sense. Even by the article creator's own admission, this list has been, from its very inception, entirely OR. It cannot be kept. "Keep but rewrite from the ground up" isn't a realistic !vote; you might as well just delete it at that point. There even isn't any point to redirecting, since every single bit of sourcing comes from UGC, none of it can ever be used, so the article history has no use itself. Nothing here has any salvage value. Morever, Jpxg's sources are no good. A few listicles doesn't really help much for determining notability for something like this, especially as a list of superlatives. The "more detailed" source is just a government report giving estimated totals for the whole country, not broken down by individual buildings. Even worse, those lists are conflating vastly different metrics of "large", be it by volume, footprint, floorspace, or what have you. Any list of "largest" is going to be difficult to justify between the various issues of metrics, sourcing, notability, completeness (how do we know that these are actually the largest?), and OR (exactly how do we decide if this is two separate buildings or one connected building? etc). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't think the https://eia.gov link is a "listicle", but even if it were, WP:RS does not distinguish between "articles devoted to a topic" and "articles devoted to a topic that contain lists". With respect to there being ambiguity between multiple criteria -- "it would be nice if the article had more sections" isn't a deletion rationale. The reason I am being such a hard-ass about this is because an AfD is the primary means by which the notability of a topic is determined. Your argument that it could simply be deleted here and recreated later does not hold up in practice -- what would happen is that it would be instantly nominated for deletion (possibly under WP:CSD) on the grounds that this AfD closed as delete. It is true that this article is not written very well, but what I'm saying is that the subject of "the largest buildings in the United States" -- whether by square footage, by building footprint, or by volume -- is a notable one, and it is worth having an article about. jp×g 08:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have linked eig.gov twice. And in neither case to anything that looks like a useable source for a 'list of largest buildings in the United states'. That would seem to require (a) data on specific buildings, and (b) clear and unequivocal statements that they were in fact the 'largest' (however defined), unless it could be shown that the source included sufficient data on all buildings which might plausibly be candidates.

To be perfectly clear about where we are as of now, the existing article is pure WP:OR. The creator of the article has acknowledged this. If the article is kept, we are required by policy to remove all the WP:OR. Which will leave a list of zero elements. Which amounts to de facto deletion, with nothing but a misleading title. Anyone could, per existing policy, have simply deleted the WP:OR at any stage. I actually contemplated doing this myself, as soon as the extent of the WP:OR became apparent. I shall do so, if the article is kept. Wikipedia is not a webhosting service for hobbyist research.

And no, deletion of an article does not in of itself prevent the creation of a new one, should proper sourcing later prove to be available. That has never been policy. The immediate solution though, for people claiming that such sourcing exists is to provide actual evidence that it does. Sourcing sufficient to create a list of largest buildings, and sufficient to show that the inclusion of such buildings in the list is merited. If the subject is 'notable' per Wikipedia standards, the necessary sourcing must be provided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of largest buildings per above. Excelse (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not establish that the topic meets WP:NLIST. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 07:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As established above, and confirmed by the page creator and more or less sole editor, the entirety of this article is comprised of WP:OR, and so should be deleted on those grounds alone. Whether or not a Redirect should then be created to List of largest buildings or a new sourced article on this topic be created is kind of besides the point, as in either case the WP:OR would need to be removed first, which in this case would mean deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lands squarely within the original research policy as well as "Reasons for deletion" (#6, 7, and 8) that is also policy. Even "if" OpenStreetMap was a reliable source advancing notability, examples such as Academy Sports and Outdoors Distribution Center‬ (random pick) shows existence only. 227 instances of the same source count as one towards notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2022 (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.