Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of buildings in Seattle

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 delete. Though consensus is clear that this list is unworkable as is (perhaps a WP:TNT conclusion), I don't see any consensus against a different attempt at cataloging in list form the contents of Category:Buildings and structures in Seattle, Washington, particularly if done in a list of lists format. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of buildings in Seattle

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

No clear criteria for inclusion. As National Register of Historic Places listings in King County, Washington#Seattle and List of Seattle landmarks already exist, this is basically "things that we recognize that nobody else does" -- and there are items on this list that have moved into one or the other of the above over time. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indiscriminate list. Could contain anything. p b p 14:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate collection of information already covered with better-curated lists and categories, especially List of Seattle landmarks. Note that there is also Featured List List of tallest buildings in Seattle as well as Category:Skyscrapers in Seattle, Washington and Category:Places of worship in Seattle, Washington, etc. Valfontis (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valfontis asked me to comment, which is probably appropriate because the article is largely illustrated with photos I took. I don't see much use to this, because it is, as others have said, an indiscriminate list. Some of it might form a good beginning for a list Places of worship in Seattle, for which criteria would be clearer. By the way, under the heading "Some notable Seattle buildings are neither nationally registered nor do they have landmark status" are several that are nationally registered or have landmark status, among these the Exchange Building and Pacific Medical Center (the latter registered under its older name). It's hard to see how this is much more than the rump of a category after some other things that meet certain criteria have been removed. - Jmabel | Talk 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge This page is obviously half-baked and the List of Seattle landmarks isn't much better. For example, neither of them yet include Pike's Place, which I've visited myself as it is far more prominent and notable than the assorted old churches and houses. But the topic is clearly notable, easily passing WP:LISTN and so should be kept for further work in accordance with our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the Pike Place Market isn't listed as a Seattle Landmark is that it isn't a Seattle Landmark. http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/preservation/p.htm. It also isn't a single building, which is another good reason not to list it here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pike Place Market is so notable that there are entire books about it. The idea that it should not be included in such coverage of Seattle is absurd. If such thinking is behind these ridiculous nominations then they should be dismissed as frivolous. Andrew D. (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pike Place Market isn't a building. There are numerous buildings in the Market historical district. Complaining that it isn't in a list of buildings is like complaining that the New York Yankees is missing from a list of baseball players. - Jmabel | Talk

Pike Place Market is a large covered market. It's not like the Yankees; it's more like Yankee Stadium. Yankee Stadium is a complex consisting of a field, the stands, a great hall, concourses, concessions, &c. And it appears in the corresponding List of buildings, sites, and monuments in New York City, just as we'd expect. The only difference seems to be that if your city is on the East Coast or Midwest, you're good but if it's in the Pacific Northwest, you're bad. Andrew D. (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, recycling "so should be kept for further work in accordance with our editing policy" adds zero weight to establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a matter of sources. It's easy to find sources which list prominent buildings in Seattle such as Famous Buildings: A Primer of Architecture or Seattle's Historic Hotels. Andrew D. (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Register of Historic Places listings in Seattle, Washington. Someone is more likely to type in this title, but that title is clearly defined. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's easily possible for this list to cover all WP:N-qualifying buildings in the city that currently have articles. It can be a mix of "See this more precise list" (e.g. provide links to the NR list, tallest buildings, and locally designated landmarks) and direct links to buildings that aren't in any of these lists. If it becomes too long, just split a bunch of them off onto another sublist. This AFD grows out of one for historical buildings and landmarks in Portland, Oregon, but there's a major difference between the two: we can't easily define which ones are historical and which ones aren't, but anyone with a basic map can decide whether a building's in Seattle or not. Nyttend (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this List article adds nothing to what a Category on the same theme would provide. Yes, I realize lists and categories on the same subject can co-exist and provide great value to our readers, but I'm not seeing it here. Numerous non-notable buildings are included in this list in its current incarnation, and I don't think the cleanup needed here would be a worthwhile use of time. Townlake (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 1-3, 6, 7, and 10. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list of tallest buildings makes sense. but this list which is turning into a directory by adding red links could end up being every building in Seattle. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The scope of this list is too broad. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too vague. ----Another Believer _(Talk) 02:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is actually a useful concept for a navigational index article, although the inclusion criteria are not stated clearly enough: (1) Building in Seattle WITH Wikipedia articles; (2) Which are NOT recognized as landmarks; and (3) which are NOT on the National Registry of Historic Places list. That is a finite and easily-definable set. What we have here is a fairly minor editing of the text that needs to be done. Carrite (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2015 (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.