Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest pyramids

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 keep. Consensus to keep and rework. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest pyramids[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)

WP:OR/WP:SYNTH list which includes disparate structures that happen to sometimes be described as pyramids, though no reliable source exists that groups all of them together. Paul_012 (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It might be merged into the main list of pyramids but the basic concept seems sound. And without this, I would not have discovered the Memphis Pyramid which sounds awesome. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment. It is was the comparison across types of structures and historical eras that ~~makes~~ made it more interesting than the average WP list. ~~Wasted Time R (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)~~ Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of every pyramid that has its own Wikipedia article, with the all the stats, notes, and images of them, would be better. But is there any doubt that the taller pyramids throughout history have been seen as more notable? If listing all of them would make the list too long, just list the tallest ones here then. Dream Focus 02:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are three such lists "in the wild",[1][2][3] but they're not from what you'd call particularly reliable sources, and comparing ancient pyramids with modern buildings that just happen to pyramid-shaped seems pretty WP:ORish to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal keep. Splitting into ancient and modern examples works okay. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not contribute to architecture pages, but what is often considered a "pyramid" in those spaces? Does it have to be from a certain time period and built out of a certain material or just be pyramid shaped? Paragon Deku (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article needs a lot of work (The Shard is only a pyramid by the most basic of geometric definitions), it is a worthwhile article to have and with proper curation would be good. BSMRD (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am fine with the seperate existence of both List of tallest pyramids and List of pyramids as I do not see a point in either deletion or merger. Kerberous (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see three issues with this list:
1. As pointed out by Paul_012 and Clarityfiend, comparing ancient pyramids like the Great Pyramid of Giza and modern (roughly) pyramidal buildings like the Ryugyong Hotel is quite an apples-to-oranges comparison, and may violate WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Considering it has such a major fundamental flaw, my first instinct about the article was that it should be deleted. But then I figured we could simply split the table in two, which I did.
2. It does not have proper WP:LISTCRITERIA that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. The WP:LEAD even says Due to lack of precise criteria, the list is unranked. This is however perfectly WP:SURMOUNTABLE; I suggest that entries should meet two criteria: (1) being described by a consensus of WP:Reliable sources as a "pyramid" (i.e. not "pyramidal", "pyramid-shaped", or "in the shape of a pyramid") and (2) meeting some minimum height requirement, say 50 meters.
3. It may or may not pass WP:NLIST. In this particular case, I'm willing to apply WP:IAR if it doesn't since it is such an obvious superlative list to have.
I don't think these issues are best addressed by deleting the article, but by improving it. TompaDompa (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2021 (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.