Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Regina

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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Regina

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

unsourced list of buildings. Article title describes it as tallest buildings in Regina but includes a proposed 3 storey building. None of the buildings are particularly tall. An external link to Emporis.com is to an empty page. noq (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nom hasn't given an valid reason to delete this perfectly valid list. This issues the nom brings up are simply article improvement requests. Deletion is not a tool for article clean-up.--Oakshade (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the list is unsourced - this in itself makes it eligible for deletion. Why do you think the list is valid? There are no inclusion criteria, no one wants to suggest one, so this appears to be a random collection of buildings without any encyclopaedic value. noq (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced is not a reason for deletion, it is a reason for a sources tag. That you feel a tallest buildings list is "a random collection of buildings without any encyclopaedic value." is a 100% WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. I dare you to put up List of tallest buildings in San Francisco for AfD with the same reasoning. --Oakshade (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have seen lists like this for other cities, and this has been accepted as a valid encyclopedia topic. Dew Kane (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in a deletion debate. noq (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sometimes it is, if it shows there is notability in such. Dew Kane (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you "have seen lists like this for other cities" does not infer notability. Can you show any discussion that establishes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply here? noq (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an adequate list. Inclusion criteria are clear, list is finite. Building height is one of the main identifying characteristics of cityscapes. List might be of interest or use to Wikipedia users, no corresponding benefit to the Wikipedia project would be gained from the deletion of this material. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article needs to have name change to List of tallest buildings in Regina, Saskatchewan as soon as this AfD closes to match form of "People from" and "Mayors of" lists. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete list of tallest building is certainly a notable topic. But creating such list for cities that have few tall buildings is not a good idea.—Chris!_c/t 19:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking notability. Maybe we can keep List of tallest buildings in San Francisco... just maybe... but even then, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, List of tallest buildings in San Francisco should definitely be kept because the city has hundred of tall buildings.—Chris!_c/t 20:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. The nom misunderstands the difference (and inherent tension) between WP:BURDEN and WP:BEFORE. Not convinced there's a huge amount of value here, but it's a reasonable article in line with other precedents. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A line has to be drawn somewhere IMO. If a city has few tall buildings, there is no reason to have a list of tall buildings. Even you said that you are "not convinced there's a huge amount of value here".—Chris!_c/t 01:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Regina, Saskatchewan. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Oakshade thats not a valid reason sure improvement can be done on the article but deletion dose not seem the right way. Kyle1278 00:19, 27 September 2010 (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.