Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of tallest buildings in Miami/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by Pres N 18:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC) - nom was never transcluded, and was lost.[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Miami

Featured list removal candidates/List of tallest buildings in Miami/archive1

Notified: Raime, Astronaut, Jedi94, Comayagua99; WikiProject Skyscrapers, WikiProject Architecture

Key points:

Black and white data (number values etc) are wrong
This is a list the point of which is black and white data.
Many of the linked pages are poor quality and stubs.
This page is basically an index to lead to linked pages.
Core reference site is highly erred
There is not enough interest in topic for it to have more sources or even be properly maintained.
This is not an AfD or anything that will see the article deleted;
This is just to recognize that it is not among Wikipedia's very best content.

Article is poorly maintained; it seems that there was a lot of work put into it during a relatively exciting time during the past decade. It has since, however, fallen badly out of date. Furthermore, it is and long has been littered with errors. It is a difficult subject to tackle as many sources are conflicting, and the go-to sites like Emporis and the CTBUH database Skyscraper Center are often outdated or wrong. The majority of the linked articles in the list are worded very poorly, which is not at the very least due to language barrier; often the English itself is a grammatical nightmare. Additionally, going back to outdated or simply wrong data, projects in this area are changed and revised so often, sometimes even during mid-construction, that almost no database is accountable. A case study is an article I tried to go a little more in depth on: Panorama Tower. Even that information is not solid as sources have thrown out wildly different numbers, some due to previous designs, some by different methods of measurement. Even "reputable" sources are not reputable in Florida. NBC Miami called a most likely 99 year-old building (going by an online property data mining site) that others call 102 or 103 years old 140 years old NBC 6. Don't even bother with The Miami Herald. A more in depth, strictly engineering-based database of observed information would be better, or the final data the FAA receives is about what it would take to keep up. Even this regional business journal quoting a local attorney states how ungrounded the subject is: "The city of Miami is so hell bent on development that safety takes a back seat." Tower heights concern FAA A more minor but still very prevalent issue is the fact that most heights, especially what is quoted in FAA approvals, goes by height AMSL not HAGL as virtually every building in the city is at an elevation between five and ten feet.

Although it is highly unlikely that anybody doing serious research on engineering or architecture would go by Wikipedia, or even doing serious research on this type of architecture in the first place, it is detrimental to call this content featured. B137 (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No opinion Indeed, I have no idea why B137 decided to notify me of this review. I have had no previous involvement with this list or any project in Miami (apart from a now deleted article, about which I was very dubious). If more people need to be notified, please pick someone else. Astronaut (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I notified you because you're one of the most involved editors of skyscraper-related topics. You and raime also seem to be slightly more educated that the average editor with a passing interest, and I thought you guys more likely to me aware of the shortcomings of the all to accepted go-to site for hardly notable buildings with few or no other sources, emporis. I didn't actually look through the entire history to see that you were not a part of that specific list, I only knew it to be one of your key editing topics.

On that note this could be used as evidence to lack of interest in the topic; many of the other editors to the article are intermittent and not very seasoned. I could probably do some digging or even my own surveying to get the article up to date, for now. But that is not something I can guarantee for the long run, aside from the fact that my own right triangle trigonometry is not a reliable source. B137 (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to deletion Aside from the "Cancelled" section of the article, most if not all towers seem to be sourced. The speculative nature of real estate development, particularly in Miami, makes having this article be a 100% on-point on when buildings will be completed is a challenge. This is the nature of real estate, and I think the estimate dates given are sufficient and sensible. More generally, I find this article to be helpful in the cataloging of towers in the Miami, and particularly amongst those which are completed, seems as accurate as possible, and very helpful.--Comayagua99 (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The exact point is that it should not be considered featured. That will most likely have trivial to no effect on people finding the page, it is just inappropriate not to warn them not too take it too seriously. A lot of the info is plain wrong. I never said it wasn't sourced, I said that emporis is not a very reliable source and possibly should not be relied on as heavily as it is. Info such as The Doubletree Grand being 365 feet when it has 40 actual floor plates plus a large structural glass Quonset above that is plain wrong. And two neighboring buildings (http://www.emporis.com/building/plazavenetiahotel-miami-fl-usa http://www.emporis.com/building/biscaynebaymarriotthotel-miami-fl-usa are listed as having the exact same height to the nearest hundredth of a foot in three categories when they are different designs is a little more than unlikely. Also floor numbers and year completed info is often far off, such as claiming the previously mentioned doubletree was completed in 1978 when all other sources including real estate data say 1986. Many other buildings have dubious or highly outdated data. It's not the end of the world, I'm just saying this should not be featured content. This isn't an AfD. B137 (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example is the JW Marriott Marquis Miami which adjoins the Wells Fargo Center (Miami) (basically the same building). It is claimed that the shorter tower is 367 feet (112 m) when it is clearly well over half the height of the allegedly 647 feet (197 m) office tower. The parking garage itself is over 200 feet (61 m). You can see in the image to the right how it is even well over half the height of the ~750 feet (229 m) foot Southeast Financial Center, despite being further in the background. B137 (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Now that it has been the mandatory two weeks and this hasn't gotten very much enthusiastic input I would just like to reemphasize the key points I placed at the top and that the only "opposer" mistook this for a deletion nomination. B137 (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attention needed: This FLRC has stagnated and needs attention. Perhaps the standard outcome in a "no consensus" review should be applied. B137 (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note- this nomination, as far as I can tell, was never actually transcluded to WP:FLRC, and therefore never got a proper discussion. I'm going to just close it; feel free to re-nominate correctly if you wish. --Pres N 18:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.