Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of three tallest structures in the world

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 no consensus. v/r - T P 02:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of three tallest structures in the world

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

Hmmmm, not sure what to do about this one. I guess deletion is the best answer, although that's too bad.

The concept is not necessarily flawed, but the execution is not up to par, and I don't see how to fix it. It mainly consists of charts, which apparently use some app called EasyTimeline. But the page is showing a big error message "Invalid image map generated by EasyTimeline". In addition, the charts are hard to read (unreadable in parts) and just not up to our information display standards I don't think.

It's all done with a bunch of quite complicated-looking formatting code that is way above my pay grade to fix, and it's been this way for a while and I don't know if anyone is ever going to fix it. The person who created it, User:Najro, is no longer active.

And the text part of the article seems to be unreferenced original research.

I think we'd be better off taking it down, it's not of the quality we want to host and isn't an asset to our reputation. Herostratus (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (somehow) Maybe as a list article? Very interesting and encyclopedic content. North8000 (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good facts and encyclopedic content however problem with article is about reference Sehmeet singh Talk 18:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In what what is this encyclopedic and not a Timeline of the four tallest structures in the world? etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This would seem to serve Wikipedia's aim of providing gazetteer-like material. It needs references and I'm not sure if the standard for inclusion (can carry more than its own weight, not buoyed up by water) is accepted or arbitrary, but these problems are fixable, I believe. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interesting if believable; but alas three is a subjective decision, why not 5? 20? and there is no indication that any reliable source exists that talks about the top 3 tallest structure, rather than the tallest one. Should we have another article for the 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... n ... tallest, fattest, biggest, smallest, oldest, youngest, heaviest, furthest, longest, shortest, etc. everything? that's what this invites. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of rewrite The article could be fixed, but I'm wondering "why?" Does it present useful information that is not already adequately covered in List of tallest buildings and structures in the world (for example) or the many other 'tall ...' articles in this encyclopedia? I have already commented on the talk page about I think is wrong with this article's presentation and style. Unfortunately, I have not had time to revisit the article for the promised fixing and no one else has stepped up either. To help others with a possible rewrite, EasyTimeline is a MediaWiki extension and is explained here and it might help explain the bold red error message. Astronaut (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Extended comment: In my opinion, the liberal use of [citation needed] tags is not so problematic; the tagged phrases simply lay out the criteria for inclusion and were tagged in error back in Jan 2010. The lack of clear criteria is quite a problem for many 'tall...' articles due to random prople adding their favourite building without studying the intention of the article - I've lost count of the number of times I have removed the Milad Tower from the List of tallest buildings and structures in the world for example. I'm tempted to remove the [citation needed] tags. And over at Talk:List of tallest structures in the world by country#Changes I have suggested trimming the lists and setting out a clear set of criteria for inclusion. The problem of why only the three tallest are listed is also less of an issue, you have to call a halt to any list sometime so why not three which seems to fit many people's screen width OK. Astronaut (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - All that's arguable (and did you mean "Delete or rewrite" in your bolded comment?). My main brief, and reason I submitted the article is 1) it's not OK to have an article with an error message and 2) more arguably, error message or no, the charts are ugly and difficult to decipher and in parts unreadable, and 3) it's existed this way for quite a while and it's reasonable to assume that it may do so for years more or forever. Granted we usually don't delete articles for content problems, but if in fact no one is going to fix it it's a reasonable solution (it can always be recreated). I'm not going to read up on EasyTimeline and delve into that, and is anybody? Who will bell the cat? Herostratus (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because the topic doesn't seem to meet notability. Why 3, and not 5 or 10? Certainly the documenting the tallest (1) has been covered, and a history is included in List of tallest buildings and structures in the world. In other words, there is no need for this article regardless of the flawed execution. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No real deletion rationale given. Nominator concedes that the only problem is the execution and doesn't know how to fix it. True, article needs improvement (and references!) but as per nominator: "concept is not necessarily flawed." -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree this is indiscriminate and better covered and discussed at History of the tallest buildings in the world. Dzlife (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The noms principal objection is he does not know how to code the graphic, about the most irrelevant of arguments. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 16 September 2011 (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.