Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. After extended time for discussion, I find that there is consensus to delete this list as failing WP:LISTN. In theory, of course, editors with an interest in doing so could create a list of the tallest buildings in every state, county, city, town, village, and neighborhood. 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. BD2412 T 00:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama[edit]

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

List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As with many other "tallest buildings in X" articles, I can find no indication that Montgomery has notably tall buildings, or that it is so unusual that it warrants having such a list regardless. The buildings themselves are not notable either - only one still has a link, and the others that had articles were recently deleted on notability grounds. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does a list with only one notable entry satisfy those criteria? Spiderone 07:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia:Other stuff exists establishes precedent"? Anyone who's been contributing as long as you have has got to know what a ridiculous argument that is to make at AfD. But since we're talking precedents, allow me to refer you to the precedent set over the past year for such "other stuff":Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Sandy Springs, Georgia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Peoria, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Aurora, Colorado, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Ludhiana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Gary, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Aylesbury, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Metairie, all of which closed as delete except the last, which closed as redirect since it was unsourced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's been around awhile, I've read the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, which states:

In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid... When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes...Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars...As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments related to existing notability policies and guidelines in deletion discussions, and also to consider otherwise valid matters of precedent and consistency, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged...

Interesting how you've used my mentioning the essay as an attempt to validate your argument. Is one to suppose that by doing so you don't actually consider it so ridiculous at all? One can note that that the reference to the essay is parenthetical & not the basis of the rationale, and that in the reply other points provided have been conveniently ignored.Djflem (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed redundant to call out your other points when Spiderone had already done so; no need to repeat myself. It's ironic that you quote a paragraph that reads "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged...", considering that's exactly what you did in your initial keep vote. Also, you're bitching about me supposedly conveniently ignoring things, but I notice you opted not to mention the large precedent for deletion that made up the remainder of my comment...there's a phrase for that sort of thing, if I recall correctly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. I did not counter the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name in my initial keep vote; I parenthetically referred to it. I will strike that since it appears to be a distraction and allow what I clearly stated (and cited): satifies Wikipedia:SALAT, Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA and Wikipedia:LISTN" to stand on its own and give you to the opportunity address it, which you have not yet done. Djflem (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So again, you have no comment to make on the precedent that within the last year or so, these types of lists have generally been deleted after being challenged at AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone:
  • Wikipedia:SALAT: This list fulfills objective as it is limited in size and topic and is not trivial and is encyclopedic and related to human knowledge
  • Wikipedia:LISTPURP #1: This list fulfills requirement because the list structured around a theme and is annotated.
  • Wikipedia:CSC: This list fulfills this criteria explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. The lack of a parent article in which it can be embedded does not exist and there no need or requirement for it to exist in order for the list to exist.
  • Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA: This list fits this criteria because listed items fit its narrow scope and are topically relevant making it encyclopedic, comprehensive (and possibly) complete.
  • Wikipedia:LISTOUTCOMES: This list is in accordance with consensus of outcomes because it is limited in scope, based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, has verifiable content, and has a logical reason for its construction. Djflem (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please demonstrate how a list of the heights of not-notably-tall, not-otherwise-notable buildings is not trivial. You could apply your non-argument above to any arbitrary list of statistics, no matter how frivolous. Assuming I had the information from the local property registry, I could write a list of the widest buildings on main street in my hometown and you would accept that as useful encyclopedic content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the information and can verify it, I suppose you are more than welcome to make your theoretical list and see how consensus develops around keeping/deleting it, but until such time, please keep your points relevant & based in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, because the above "suppose I" is actually the non-argument. Please also refrain from telling me what I would accept, 1)because you don't and 2) because it's rude.Djflem (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you can't demonstrate that the present list of non-notable buildings is not simple trivia, got it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a contributor you are welcome to your opinion/claim/assertion and are welcome to demonstrate it. As an administrator, got anything based in policy or guidelines? Djflem (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTSTATS, for one, and WP:SALAT, since you brought it up. In what way is a list of the heights of mostly non-notable, not-notably-tall buildings not simply a trivial pile of meaningless statistics? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to the opinion about what you consider trivial and to ignore the other information provided in list if you so chose.Djflem (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, sorry, so now we're supposed to judge the utility of the list whose topic is "tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama" based on...the other information in the article? Can the goalposts stay in one place, please? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No changing goalposts, list format has stayed the same, though vastly improved. And yes, now would be a good time to start to see all the information provided in it (other than the heights of the building), if you haven't already.Djflem (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a well sourced article which passesWP:V and WP:LISTN. When we have RS we keep the article/list. Montgomery is the capital of Alabama and the 2nd largest city in Alabama. Notable buildings. To delete the list would be a disservice to our readers. Lightburst (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References can be factually accurate without indicating notability. A suite of references that confirms the height of individual buildings does not confirm the notability of the overall topic of the list. If there were articles discussing the height of buildings in Montgomery, Alabama, as some kind of outlier, then that would indicate the notability of the topic. But that's not what has been inserted into the article, and I hope the closer takes that into account. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Sometimes articles like this are kept, sometimes deleted. Some have links to articles about them, some just have references about them. They are notable enough that their height is mentioned, that a key aspect to any building. Dream Focus 01:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope the closer takes note that this comment is pure sophistry, and fails to actually make a policy-based argument. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blue links prove a list article is useful for navigation. There are also references proving this subject is discussed so its a valid list article for that reason as well. Dream Focus 03:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there are references that verify some of the facts in the article, but there are no references that discuss the topic of the height of buildings in Montgomery as a general concept. That's not the same thing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the argument about bluelinks is somewhat misleading. The majority of the bluelinks in the list are to companies or institutions which own the buildings, not to the buildings themselves, which again are generally not individually notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- I'm not sure this was explicitly stated anywhere above, but this starts to get into WP:NOTDIR #6 (Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations). We already have List of tallest buildings in Alabama, but even that's pushing it (the top entry there doesn't even crack the top 100 nationwide). Further narrowing by city in a state of mostly unremarkably tall buildings doesn't make sense. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deacon Vorbis you should !vote on a few more AfDs so it does not look like you are following the ARS after a contentious ANI. Lightburst (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The irony of this comment is incredible, considering the bloc voting committed by the ARS constantly (as in this very AfD). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey PMC, I forgot to place the notice for ARS so I just did now. And I have nothing against your nomination of the list. From time to time these lists get nominated. I feel like the list is notable and others do not. Lightburst (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No bloc voting has ever occurred, many have checked thoroughly and were never able to find any such thing. I check the list articles and commented in plenty of those opened right now, and have done this for years. Others show up at lists from that as well. So far I'm the only person that voted after Lightburst to KEEP. Dream Focus 03:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^^^That is true... Dream Focus follows all of the lists at AfDs and so do I. Just checked August 17-23rd Dream Focus !voted on 11 list AfDs. Contrast that with DV who !voted on 3 AfDs since August 8th and two of the AfDs were articles nominated by ARS. Lightburst (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, I don't know why you'd claim that you just placed the ARS notice, considering you placed it before you even commented at this AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
just moments ago - I had forgot. Lightburst (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, when you said placing the ARS notice I thought you meant listing the article on the ARS page. Fair enough. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have been on vacation for a while. But I will get it together. Lightburst (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Deacon Vorbis: As clearly stated in Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists: 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...Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.... Please refer to Category:Lists of buildings and structures.Djflem (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the pile of other deleted lists of tallest buildings in minor city X would seem to indicate that these don't fulfill any such purpose. I think anyone would agree that making lists of the tallest buildings per street in Montgomery, Alabama would be inappropriate per things like WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR (mentioned already), no matter how well-sourced. So the line is there somewhere. I'm arguing that this list is on the wrong side of it. I'm basing that, as I said, on the fact that there's already a list for buildings in Alabama, which is already not very remarkable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that your citation of Wikipedia:IINFO is in itself indiscriminate since this list is not any of the things mentioned there, but rather as detailed above fulfills: Wikipedia:SALAT, Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA and Wikipedia:LISTN. (And since Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is again mentioned, I refer you, to Category:Lists of buildings and structures, which is replete with "Lists of X of Y" of many cities of many sizes and and to the other pile: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Tirana (merge), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Columbia, Missouri (keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Fort Lee (merge), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick, New Jersey (redirect),Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of buildings and structures in Metro Moncton (keep) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Metairie (redirect), which clarifies that some articles are kept, some deleted, and some are find Alternatives to deletion). I would likely agree about the per street thing you're talking about, but that ain't this article. Djflem (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would if any of the sources cited were actual in-depth reliable sources about the topic as a whole, but all that was added was fact verification about individual non-notable buildings, so that's hardly a HEYMANN. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Heymann Standard... "is invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion...", as this one has.Djflem (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons cited by User:Djflem 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although the individual entries are sourced, the topic as a whole fails GNG as it has not received RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 12:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One other thing I neglected to mention is that this list also runs afoul of WP:OR. Unless there's a comprehensive list that this is being pulled from, there's no way to verify that there are no buildings shorter than entry #11 but taller than entry #12, for example. I guess we could call this "List of buildings in Montgomery by height", but again, that just tends to highlight the cross-categorization issue I mentioned earlier. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this issue as well and removed the Rankings column. It's now being discussed on the talk page. –dlthewave ☎ 15:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Absent sources treating these as a group sufficient to meet NLIST, there's no difference between this page and any other individually sourced cross-categorization (how about "list of buildings in Walla Walla built between 1900-1920 and home to a coffee shop after 1995" or "list of buildings in Santa Fe listed chronologically according to movies they've been seen in"). That there are other similar articles only means that: that there are other similar articles. It doesn't mean this one is notable. The only argument I can see that bypasses notability would be that a list of building heights falls into Wikipedia's role as a gazetteer, making it a standard list for any place rather than letting the sourcing tell us which places we should have them for, but realistically there's no way there would be consensus for that interpretation. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://www.emporis.com/statistics/tallest-buildings/city/102202/montgomery-al-usa and other places that list buildings in an area, always have a list of the tallest buildings in that city. Emporis is a reliable source, and "is frequently cited by various media sources as an authority on building data". Whenever a new building is announced to be built, if its going to be the tallest in the city, or anywhere near that, the news media gives mention to that notable fact. Official government websites listed information such as the The Bell Building "was the city’s tallest structure when it was built in 1910" [1]. Dream Focus 17:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're adding to my point. (a) Official government websites ... used to verify individual entries, and (b) a database. We're not looking for V, we're looking for N. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shows its a notable part of their city's history, those responsible for entering in information mentioning that important fact. And newspapers of the day surely listed it also. Dream Focus 17:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is determined by coverage in independent sources. Important to the city is not necessarily important to Wikipedia. Besides, what's in question isn't what to include in the city's article but whether this particular grouping is notable enough for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absent community consensus, editors seek guidance from the guidelines specific to lists outlined above, which you have not addressed. Wikipedia:LISTN explicitly states: 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...Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.) While editors are urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists, it is not a requirement, but simply "one accepted reason" why "List of Xs" are allowed. (not, please note, the specifically mentioned "Lists of X of Y"). Given the lack of consensus about any requirement editors can also take guidance from practice on Wikipedia, where such lists are standard.Djflem (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If prior practice is important, then we should consider the many "list of tallest buildings in X" AfDs which closed as delete that I linked above. I think that gives a clear indication of the community's thinking on the utility of such lists. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And also the consider the many "list of tallest buildings in X" AfDs which didn't close as delete that I linked above.Djflem (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those list were all different circumstances and reasoning. And some other deletion discussions for list of tallest buildings ended in KEEP. Dream Focus 19:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are indeed highlighting a problem with the wording of the guidelines. The answer is not, however, to have arbitrary debates about what's "informational" or to say that because we have particular lists for some cities, it must therefore be relevant to all cities (or just this one) absent source-based reasoning. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm highlighting the fact that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines specific to lists clearly state that notability as group are not required for lists of this type and that its source-based reasoning conforms to Wikipedia:LISTOUTCOMES in that limited in scope, based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, has verifiable content, and has a logical reason for its construction. Djflem (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being the tallest building in an area, city, county, state, region, country, continent, etc., is one of the oldest brags of known to humankind. In ye olden days churches in nearby townships vied to see which could build a house of god nearest to the heavens. This interest shows zero interest in declining. Instead worldwide there is competition to build to world’s tallest building, and many varieties of the claim.
    So then we have this list. My impression is that this is more of an issue of listcreep on Wikipedia as we also have a list of tallest buildings in the state, so at the least all these entries should be merged there. I think it’s a better reader experience to have this be its own list, and similar lists by city should likely also exist. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not retain content based on something being brag-worthy. We retain content based on sources discussing a topic. Additionally, when you say similar lists by city should also exist, you ignore the strong consensus that has developed to the contrary since 2019. (See the list of similar AfDs that closed as delete which I linked above). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those AfD’s were poorly attended, and almost any day at AfD you can get a different outcome. BTW, presently 125 cities have these lists.

Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The state of Wyoming has 19 cities. The tallest building in the state is all of 12 stories tall. Going to make for some exciting bragging to lay out the various shopping malls, hospitals, and Walmarts on those lists. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Sarcasm is helpful. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guilty, yes. But I don't think my reductio is quite ad absurdum. The point is we need a reason to have such a list beyond just being able to verify the data. I imagine we meet that bar with some small cities with small buildings. For any of the bigger cities in the country (or major cities around the world) it's pretty easy to find these groupings. That makes sense as a way to satisfy notability here (treatment as a group). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve already given that reasoning, and note we have 125 of these lists for American cities already. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Djflem's reasoning, and the increased number of notable buildings on the list with their own articles since the nomination. Dralwik|Have a Chat 19:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While some of the buildings are listed on the NRHP, they are listed for other reasons then their height. This list is not really discussed as a group except in sources that are designed to list random statistics. Yes it's true that the tallest building is noted because it's tall, but the fifth tallest doesn't matter to anybody. WP:OSE is not a convincing argument here. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no requirement that these list have notability by group, so actually that is not a policy based argument either: Wikipedia:LISTN explicitly states: "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...Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.)" While editors are urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists, it is not a requirement, but simply "one accepted reason" why "List of Xs" are allowed. (not, please note, the specifically mentioned "Lists of X of Y", such as this). Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT (sorry you don't like the 5th building) and Wikipedia:JUSTNOTNOTABLE are not valid arguments either. (And by the way The 1907-10 Bell Building is architecturally significant as Alabama's finest example of a Sullivanesque skyscraper based on the 1890-1891 Wainwright Building and is locally significant as the finest of the remaining early steel-framed buildings in Montgomery. At the time of its construction, it was one of the two largest buildings in the state, the other building the First National Bank Building located a few blocks away..., now the 5th building on the list.) Djflem (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So yes, I made an over-generalization. I just don't see the coverage of the topic to merit a list. You're absolutely correct that there isn't a present consensus for how to assess the notability of these lists and that they are sometimes kept at AFD, which means that your argument has just as many flaws as mine, except that I don't think LISTN is met and you continue to expound upon perceived flaws in my argument and substantiating the notability of individual buildings while not establishing that the heights have been discussed as groups by many sources. WP:LISTPURP is not met because that guideline focuses on "Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia." yet none of these buildings are notable for the sole fact that they are tall. Not a single one (as far as I can tell). Mine and Rhododentrite's arguments overlap heavily. I'd rather avoid restating the same thing over and over, so will stop here (for now). Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is not flawed. There is no requirement to establish that the heights have been discussed as groups by many sources. Thought that was clear. You're welcome to the opinion about meeting LISTN, but your wish/request for such sources is not supported by or policy/guideline or validated by community consensus. This list would certainly satisfy the one aspect of WP:LISTPURP:Navigation you choose to highlight: if one were looking for information about the tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama one would find it. And yes, these buildings, like ALL buildings, have many characteristics, one of which is their height. NONE anywhere is notable for that sole fact. Djflem (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, you are misconstruing the fact that some of these type articles have been kept at AFD as policy saying that they don't need to meet LISTN. That part of the guideline is literally prefaced with "There is no present consensus", so if my opinion is not supported or validated, yours isn't either. As PMC lists above, there is in fact some amount of precedence for deleting these-types of articles. the 'Navigation' part of LISTPURP mostly refers to existing articles, yet only four of these fourteen articles have wikilinks, meaning it isn't particularly useful for navigation, particularly given that their ranking in the heights is not defining in their notability. All four of those buildings are listed at National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Montgomery_County,_Alabama, which is their defining claim to notability. While this discussion has been quite constructive, I feel we're now going back and forth, largely restating the same points, and it's time to agree to disagree. I most likely won't be convinced by your points, and it's clear you won't be by mine. Maybe a 'merge' to Montgomery, Alabama could be a compromise? Anyways, I don't plan to comment here again, so best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is misconstrued here is you your "what your saying" comment, so please be careful about that because you got it wrong. Just pointing out that the "by group source" request is invalid criteria, and THAT and that is supported by LISTN. Regarding your Wikipedia:OSE argument, there is as much precedence for alternatives to deletion, which is the preferred policy. All article of this type for US cities are constructed with a combination of 'blue-linked' and 'non-blue-linked" buildings (some of which are NRHP). That is the standard so that these lists are complete and accurate, which is crucial keeping the encyclopedia correct. All the buildings on this list fulfill the criteria of being among the tallest buildings in the Montgomery, Alabama and therefore have a place on it, satisfying Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA. Your imposition of an additional notability criteria for individual entries is misplaced, not applied to other lists of this type, and not at supported by any policy or guideline for lists. Djflem (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails WP:LISTN. I don't think there is a standard for what would be considered "tall" but don't see how a building under 20 stories would be considered notably tall.   // Timothy :: talk  04:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds a bit like Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT and Wikipedia:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, care to explain how it fails WP:LISTN? Djflem (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Other people have already done so; and at this point in a discussion, it's reasonable to assume that a !vote citing an earlier conclusion reached by several people finds those arguments more compelling. You're well into WP:BLUDGEON territory here. Please stop. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have they? If you would like to summarize what you think that explanation & conclusion are, by all means please do so. That would be helpful (unlike your accusation). I would suggest that simply tagging a link to a policy by new contributor at his point in this long discussion, especially the one cited, without reasoning as how's it's being applied does nothing to advance it. It is reasonable to ask for an explanation. I don't find your assumption reasonable, and think it better to let people speak for themselves.Djflem (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage as a topic, therefore not notable. The buildings and their height are unremarkable, see WP:MILL. Random cross-categorization violating WP:NOTDIR. Sandstein 08:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Topic coverage does not determine notability for lists of this type.
  2. Remarkable is completely subjective Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT (Also, the essay Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, isn't really applicable - if essays were applicable if AFD discussions - and would be better applied to other cites like Hong Kong or Miami were tall buildings are run-of-the-mill, but to not Montgomery, where they are far less common.)
  3. WP:NOTDIR not applicable. NOT random. This is NOT a category, it is a list article. Djflem (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Montgomery,_Alabama&oldid=1068855752"