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

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Wollongong[edit]

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

a tallest building of 16 floors hardly makes for a noteworthy list. And not an extensive listing on skyscraperpage [1]. There are many suburbs of Sydney (the major city north of Wollongong) that have higher buildings than 16 stories but do not get dedicated list of tallest buildings pages. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too specific an area, not notable enough. Legacypac (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- classic listcruft. None of these buildings are outrageously tall and this list seems overly specific. Reyk _YO! 06:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We had the same discussion for Cairns and Townsville page and they survived. In fact Wollongong is going to have taller buildings than both those two warrants a keep. It is good and interesting to compare cities of Australia. If you're not going to rampage the smaller cities in the American variants, then I don't see why Wollongong can't be here. Nikachu88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

also curious why this is your first edit in 2.5 years. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unlike many lists, it meets the requirements of WP:Stand alone lists, it has objective criteria backed up by a reliable source. Also this list is not just WP:OR from primary sources, but actually has a source that groups the topical list. However, the entire "Proposed, approved and under construction buildings" should be removed as WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL, for example Crown Wollongong Towers 1 & 2 are listed as under construction, but the source only talks about approval. Similarly the Oxford on Crown only has support for the site being cleared. By the way, I don't find Nikachu88's reasoning for keep to be responsive to policy and guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 09:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this article complies with WP:LSC. The selection criteria are unambiguous, objective, and can be verified by reliable sources. Nevertheless, the authors of this article should substantiate all entries by including inline citations to reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:V. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm the main contributor to this page, that is my fault. There isn't much official construction news of the progress of projects in Illawarra, but I use my eyes. For instance Oxford on Crown towers are almost topped out and Crown Wollongong is well under way. The only other articles are sales pages for the apartments UnbreakableMass (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For stuff like building heights, a primary source like the sales pages is acceptable; it's for value judgements and the establishment of notability that they are not. Your own eyes, however, unfortunatly count as original research. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every city has sufficiently tall buildings as to warrant having a stand-alone list of its tallest buildings. It doesn't look to me as though Wollongong is one of the cities that does, or even that it will if the proposed and approved buildings listed on this page are built. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But if there are reliable sources to substantiate the inclusion of the items in the list, then the list complies with Wikipedia policy (per WP:LSC). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perfectly legitimate stand-alone list per WP:LSC and WP:STANDALONE. I also think the "proposed" section could stay as long its contents are well-verified and serious (ie, only credible proposals to actually build something, rather than just concepts). --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2016 (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.