Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of world's most expensive single objects

:{{la|List of world's most expensive single objects}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|List of world's most expensive single objects}})

As per WP:LISTN, I haven't been able to find reliable sources which discuss the topic of this list as a group or set. The only such lists I've been able to find via Google searches are obviously based off of this Wikipedia article. The sources listed within the article only discuss individual items in the list; none of them appear to discuss the group of most expensive objects. Mlm42 (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom an obvious original synthesis and Original scope The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Nominator is correct. WP:LISTN requires that, for a stand-alone list to meet notability guidelines, there must be reliable, secondary sources treating the listed things/people/events/etc.. together as a group or set. Other than articles mirroring Wikipedia, there does not appear to be such treatment of the things listed here in reliable secondary sources. Fladrif (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

::This does not make sense... We have countless of lists whose entries in their entirety are certainly not presented "as is" in a secondary source. After all it would be impossible to create meaningful lists, otherwise. Or maybe I don't understand the guideline? Nageh (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

:::I think the point is that nobody else appears to have ever really talked about "the world's most expensive single objects" before. So we shouldn't have an article/list on it. Mlm42 (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

::::Exactly. I suspect that there are, as has been pointed out below, secondary sources which deal with lists of things like "most expensive satellites", "most expensive bridges", "most expensive airports", "most expensive bridges" etc... and those would be perfectly appropriate stand-alone list articles, sourced to those secondary sources. But there is not, insofar as anyone has discovered, any reliable secondary sources that try to lump or aggregate all those things together as has been done here, in an article that is using its own internal logic and criteria to create a list out of sources that do not treat all these things as a group or set. That is the criteria for notability under LISTN, and it is not satisfied in this case.Fladrif (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Rename and re-cast as a list of the world's most expensive construction and engineering projects. Even a cursory Google search shows up lots of sources for that kind of information, and the current article name is misleading anyway - I was expecting a list of Faberge eggs and the like! Barnabypage (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• List of world's most expensive transport infrastructure exists and would duplicate the scope of your proposed article title. both List of megaprojects and List of tallest buildings and structures in the world would both highly correlated if not outright duplicate material in your proposed scope as well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Fair enough. In that case editors working on the article under discussion might be better off putting their energies into finding sourced project costs for the transport infrastructure and megaproject lists. Barnabypage (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Essentially a copy of List of megaprojects, but only including one entry for each "item". Item is also incredibly poorly defined. Ravendrop 20:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep a suitable topic for an encyclopedia, but tighten up the inclusion definition so that we dont get networks or systems added. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• But we need a source which satisfies WP:LISTN.. Mlm42 (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not sure whether this list isn't just essentially duplicating what we have in List of megaprojects. A particular concern is the relativity of the inclusion criteria: Is the 1 billion dollar limit absolute or inflation-adjusted? Is it fair to include a structure erected for a billion dollars in 2011 but not one for 900 million dollars in 1980? Nageh (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep this format is better than the other alternatives. Doing math is not original research. Nor is sorting by a number original research. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• It is when your doing calculations with numbers from a group of items that no one has ever grouped together, Thats why we have WP:LISTN The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as synthesis. Such a list would need to employ valuations from a consistent source, rather than simply collecting together individual sources for each item. How do we know that some objects aren't missing? How do we know that some sources don't calculate valuations differently to others? We don't, so this is synthesis. Cordless Larry (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete these are projects not objects, but my main reason for deletion is that it is impossible to compare without the same method of independent valuation of each project. Project costs can be exaggerated or deliberately underestimated for political or financial reaons. LibStar (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• delete in addition to there being no third party sourcing discussing the topic of "most expensive single objects" i am not even seeing the current sources as identifiying these as "single objects" and the source for the ISS for example is including "running costs ". Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep This is simply an interesting column to read. If you scrutinize every article with the same narrow viewpoint of "notability" as this one is, then you might as well ban any original posts. The simple fact that this is a fairly original subject gives it it's "required notability" already. Hell, as soon as someone writes a similar article using some of the information from this one, it will then be bumped to a secondary source, and be scrutinized again and again. Don't expect every article posted on this site to meet some rediculous standard before it can be considered worthy of being kept. In my opinion the very fact that it's interesting and contains valid monetary values makes it worthy. The author even states that "The figures below represent the estimated cost to build these objects, not taking into account inflation.", so stop nit picking and get a life. User:Eldix 05:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.166.157 (talk)

• Delete - The topic itself does not receive any coverage so the point of list is...? -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Random accumulation of factoids. Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of World Records... Carrite (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Meaningful page of a list. (useful for comparasion) But needs further organizations. --Prince Max 00:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince Max (scientist) (talk • contribs)
• Delete Single object? "Project" may be more suitable but then there is List of megaprojects which in itself is indiscriminate and probably belongs on the chopping block. The megaproject article and list at least give sources "coining" and discussing the term. I also don't like how inflation is not used in this list and from my stand-point it is missing a lot of $1 billion+ "single objects" such as dams in addition to the two listed. The will for the most part only contain relatively modern objects.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:27, 28 February 2011 (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.