Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Charleston, South Carolina

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. I'm not trying to shape policy, I found the arguments of those advocating Delete more persuasive than those arguing to Keep this article and I don't see that this list fulfills recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Charleston, South Carolina[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Per extensive recent consensus on these types of lists, they must meet WP:NLIST/WP:GNG. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Shreveport and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama which both closed as clear delete, with closure statements refuting the argument that any other criteria takes precedence over notability for these lists.

The topic of tall buildings in Charleston, South Carolina as a whole has no significant coverage that I found, so GNG/NLIST is not met. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and South Carolina. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikpedia consensus to keep lists of notable subjects for navigation and per Wikipedia:CSC, which does require all items to be blue-linked. Useful surevy with embedded with useful information about history, growth, development, urban planning, streetscape of Charleston. Djflem (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The cited closures do not address WP:NLIST:There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. They are attempts by closers to write policy, which is NOT the role of closers and should be disregarded as such. Djflem (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are the result of closers assessing arguments and systematically rejecting yours. There may have been no clear consensus on how to handle such lists when that passage was written, but the across-the-board delete closures indicate that the community has indeed come to a consensus about these lists. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The passage as written was the guideline in effect and is still in effect and will remain the guideline in effect until such time as it is re-written. Therefore any creative interpretation does not constitute a guideline approved by the community, but rather a position taken by the closer, who would have done better to join the discussion with their opinion, rather than use it in their closure, which go beyond reporting neutrally the outcome of discussion. Djflem (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The portion you cite isn't a black and white prescription for keeping these lists. Read the actual words, not what you want them to say. It says "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept". Let's break that down.

First of all, that says "Often kept". Not "must be kept," not "always kept", but "often kept". It's not describing what must be done, but simply reporting that this is often done. Second of all, the consensus was extremely clear at the above-cited closes (especially Montgomery, Alabama) that "tallest buildings" lists do not necessarily "fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes," so even if that passage was prescriptive (again - it's not), it wouldn't apply to these lists. Considering how clear the consensus has been, it would have been a supervote for the closers to close them any other way. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As written in above mentioned: "While this seems natural for cities known for the height of their buildings like Chicago, and New York, at some point, there must be a cutoff. The consensus here represents a definition that the city for this list is below that cutoff" is writing a guideline. It is specific in stating "this" city (Montgomery), but that has been construed to mean other cities, while the newly created "cutoff" was never actually was defined. Nowhere does it specify type of city or height of buildings, though there have been numerous claims that it has. Djflem (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The cutoff is that such lists, by clear consensus, must meet notability guidelines. Sources must exist showing that the topic is discussed as a whole. Closers of such lengthy AfDs often sum up the consensus as a courtesy explaining their thinking; this is not "writing a guideline" by any means. For the closers to specify type of city or height of buildings would of course be overstepping into creating policy by fiat - which of course is why none of them have done so on any of these AfDs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, their explanation is very specific in its supposed "cutoff" about types of cities and heights of buildings, an attempt write guideline, and goes onto say The consensus here represents a definition that the city for this list is below that cutoff. It's not a courtesy, it's overreach and in conflict with the role of a closer. Djflem (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you had that much of a problem with the close, you should have DRV'd it two years ago. Complaining that it's illegitimate now after these articles have continued to be deleted by clear consensus is obviously just a case of sour grapes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's just acknowledge that any AfD nomination citing the faulty close, as you have, are faulty themselves. Djflem (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NLIST, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. In this case, many of the list entries are on notable subjects and so I feel this article meets the criteria. Nomination appears to be a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF and neither appear to be comparable anyway as the majority of entries in those cases did not have articles. Garuda3 (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the above discussion; this argument clearly does not apply to these lists in the absence of any sources about the topic as a whole. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your reasoning. The close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama that you linked above is pretty clear that whether to keep or delete should be decided on a case-by-case basis and not by blindly following any particular guideline. Garuda3 (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that we should have to make a case for notability for each of these articles individually. Great! In which case, please make the case for notability in a policy-based manner depending on sources, not by "blindly following" NLIST's note that such articles are often (not always, not must) kept. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of these "List of tallest buildings in X" article AFD discussions have closed as "Delete" but there are objections to the nomination here so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems rather useless, most of the "building" are under two hundred feet, most are church steeples and most if not all don't even seem to be on the NRHP or heritage buildings. A list just for the sake of having a list isn't needed, show me why these deserve to be tabulated. There is no discussion before the chart showing why they don't have very tall buildings, or why most are churches for example. I'd be inclined to !keep if we had some explanation, rather than just a list. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the list for Los Angeles for example, that's a proper article on wiki. Some discussion about the buildings, then the list. I can't find anything discussing the history of tall buildings in Charleston either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete When five of the first six entries are church steeples, we're talking a place where the height of buildings is hardly noted. We have mostly deleted these lists because of the lack of evidence that people really care; they were largely copied from Emporis without regard to whether anyone cared what the twenty-fifth tallest building in 'Random City" was. Mangoe (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unambiguous NLIST failure. There is no demonstration that there is any real discussion in secondary sources about this subject. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we can say something substantive about the tallest buildings in the articles on the city of Charleston, South Carolina it can be done there. There is no justification for this list article. The list also fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST, which is a mess of WP:LISTCRUFT. CPORfan (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2022 (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.