While the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see the biographies of living persons noticeboard.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
You say that it serves no purpose, but this is how WIkipedia branches out to include more information for its interested users who want to learn more about subjects. If not this way, then how? It is a relevant area of information. There are architects of supertall buildings that are noteworthy, just as their poets, Fortune 500 CEOS, and other professions that are noteworthy, and they get their due space in Wikipedia. Why should Wikipedia readers be denied getting facts that inform them more clearly in a non-commercial way about useful information? Mykjoseph (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)mykjoseph, 12-21-08
One more thing, if you do not allow this to topic to have its own page, then why can't it be a small part of the category page of the List of Supertall Buildings, where it is even more relevant, and where I first attempted to list this but was denied. You do not allow the topic to be mentioned in any way, shape or form. There are thousands of people worldwide who are very fascinated by the topic of tall buildings. Just check out SkyscraperPages and other websites, but they cannot find factual information like what I am providing there or nearly anywhere else. Could the reason you oppose this be that you are in the architectural field but have not achieved this high level of achievement? Mykjoseph (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)mykjoseph, 12-21-08
Wrong place to put your reasons for keeping the page I am afraid. You need to argue the case at the deletion discussion - but you will need to look at the policy documents such as WP:LISTS and WP:ATA and then make your case. Springnuts (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:Shanghai Center Dragon.jpg
As one who is very interested and professionally engaged in this subject, I endorse the concept of the list. Unfortunately I find the list to be very incomplete. Simply because of this, it cannot be considered authoritative as presented in the title "List of architects of supertall buildings," which implies some sort of completeness. I think the list should be retained but its name must be modified, e.g. "Partial list of..." or "Selected list of ..." etc. At the very least, the list should be accompanied by statements that (a) define what is meant by a "supertall building" and (b) acknowledge the incompleteness.
Hopefully the list will be expanded, and someday it may merit the present title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The original creator of the article never really committed to completing the list. After I originally proposed it for deletion, which was declined, I had no choice but to update it as I felt it couldn't be left with one or two architects. Over the next month I gradually added more architects but I became busy and stopped. I'd like to get started again when I can, but I can't be expected to do it all myself. It would be nice if the original creator who seemed quite set on having his article linked everywhere could contribute a bit. --timsdad(talk) 07:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I just happened across this list,too. I think it should be deleted. As it looks like that is unlikely to happen from the above comment, I am going to update the list. I will do it based on today's date. It will be continually out of date in the future as there are hundreds of proposed towers over 300 meters. I suggest that to make this list complete there need to be a few criteria set: 1) only complete, open and in-use towers 2) height must be as certified by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat or as by the measuring standards of it's height committee 3) towers should be broken down into groups 300M+, 600M+ and this will allow for the continual use of the list as it gets too large in the new future and only the taller category is updated 4) only the concept architecture firm to be listed, no local architect, no architect of record, disputes should refer to whoever the developer chooses or a majority of authorities on the subject, like CTBUH, Emporis, etc 5) as for the listed person, oh boy this is always an argument only sometimes is it clear, any suggestions? - Brad Wilkins (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I've been trialling a different format for this article, with all of the architects and buildings in a table. My work can be found in this sandbox. My main reasons for trying this out are that there are double ups of architectural firms in the current format (e.g. Atkins listed as a firm at the top for The Address Downtown Burj Dubai and then lower down as the firm Tom Wright worked for when desigining the Burj Dubai. I'm hoping the table format will overcome this. --timsdad(talk) 12:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)