Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Tysons, Virginia

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. Sandstein 07:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Tysons, Virginia[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)

Almost none of these buildings are notable or even that tall. An unincorporated area with a population of about 19,000, isn't that impressive either. Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" no(sense) reason given in nomination for deletion. Informed article about development of area and construction. Djflem (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously "no(sense)" is code for don't delete because WP:ILIKEIT. The list must meet notability requirements that can be found at WP:LISTN--Rusf10 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tysons is more than an unincorporated area. It is home to the tallest building in the Washington DC metro area, the most valuable parcel of land in Fairfax County, and numerous major construction projects resulting in more tall buildings than anywhere else in the metro DC region. Based on the amount of residential construction ongoing, the population will be more on the order of five times what was listed above in a few years and many more than that work in the area. StuffOfInterest (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of tallest buildings in Virginia, which already has most of this list, or merge with List of tallest buildings in Arlington, Virginia for a Northern Virginia list, though it fits in the main list as well. This gets excessive to have lists for every place with a handful of somewhat tall but largely non-notable buildings (not remotely skyscrapers). Reywas92^Talk 20:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went there once and the gridlock on the Beltway was so bad that I gave up and checked into a hotel for the night. Anywhere that's that busy is bound to be notable. Andrew D. (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What policy is this based on? –dlthewave ☎ 03:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that would be WP:ITISBUSY--Rusf10 (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well sourced article. WP:Preserve, WP:Not paper, WP:GNG, WP:NEXIST, WP:Sigcov. And no compliance with WP:Before — nominator has ignored the article as it is and as it may become. No policy based or factually based reason for deletion proposed. Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a reason to delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just point to multiple policies without explanation, see WP:JUSTAPOLICY and the article is not well sourced. I may have many sources, but they are not good sources. Half the sources are emporis.com which is a database and not even reliable. Also, applications with the county government, that's WP:PRIMARY and does nothing to establish notability. And for the last time, stop attacking me. I did a WP:BEFORE search and the policy not being met here is WP:LISTN which require significant coverage in reliable third-party sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again with the "Personal attack" line. Irrelevant. I have pointed to the policies, and we disagree as to their meaning and application. Burden is on you to provide reasons for deletion, and you are the proposer. Change in status quo ante. You create the problem, and then blame (WP:Personal attack – it's not about you, but it is about your process and wholesale AFDs) those who disagree with you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I have pointed to the policies" Yes, you have, but you have not explained how any of them apply, so its meaningless.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. You've said it before. Repetition does make your arguments more persuasive. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Not all the information here is at List of tallest buildings in Virginia or Tysons, Virginia. Valid sourced material is here in the History section. Could that information be merged to one of the other articles? No valid reason given to delete this. If its redundant and can be merged elsewhere, then start a merge discussion on the article's talk page, don't try to delete it entirely. Dream Focus 15:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW well sourced article. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 03:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one was a miss. Tyson's Corner is one of the most important commercial centers in the Washington DC area with plenty of tall buildings and plenty of citations to boot. SportingFlyer T·C 04:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this will most probably be "kept" (duh, coola), but are there any books that discuss this (one of the indications of WP:NLIST)? and why does it have to be a list of the tallest buildings (lots of phallic symbolism here:)), why not just "Buildings of Tysons, Virginia" so that the toilet bowl, amongst others can be included?Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2019 (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.