Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in St. John's, Newfoundland

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 Keep all Mandsford 00:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in St. John's, Newfoundland[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. This is a mass nomination for every city in Canada with a similar list, but without at least three buildings over 100m. Cities like Toronto have at least some claim to notability for their skyline as a whole, but most of these cities have a number of buildings between 30m and 60m high, sometimes with a few higher ones. Buildings of e.g. 40m are not notable for their height, and these buildings aren't notable as a group. Fram (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

  • Merge All back into their city articles as per standard practice. The issue here is more of whether or not a separate list is needed or whether they can be included on the main page. There is not reason to delete this information as a whole. Ravendrop 19:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge I looked at a couple of these and there is no problem with finding sources for those I looked at. Asking about the tallest buildings in a city is a basic question, we should be able to answer it. "Other sites do it better" is no argument, other sites do a lot of things better, and where possible we supply links (BBC, IMDB and Planet Math for example) but we still cover the material ourselves as well as we can. Rich Farmbrough, 20:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • "The tallest building of a city" can easily be added to the article on that city. A list of the tallest 10, 20, 50 buildings though is something else. Do we have reliable sources discussing this as a group? Emporis is hardly a reliable site, from what I have seen. The question for a list is not whether the individual entries can be sourced (no one disputed that), but whether the group topic has received attention. The few sources you added only worked for the tallest building, not for whatever is the sixth-tallest and so on... Fram (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some Many of the lists, such as Victoria, Quebec City, Halifax, List of tallest buildings in Yellowknife, St. John's, Saskatoon, Regina, Saint John due to the fact that all of these city lists are notable because of their status either as their provincial capital, or the largest city in the province, furthermore, all of these cities have a distinct, readily identifiable skyline. The lists of Hamilton and London are notable because, while they do not both have 3+ buildings over 100 meters, the tallest building in London is the tallest office building in Ontario outside of Toronto, and London has 2 more buildings(aside from the a fore mentioned) that stand taller than 90m with a further under construction. Hamilton's list is notable as it contains 5 buildings over 90 m, with 2 over 100 m and another close to 100m. Hamilton is the Golden Horseshoe's second largest metropolis with a metropolitan population that rivals Winnipeg's, and therefore a lot of people may use this list. Chadillaccc(talk) 20:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason many of the lists only contain one website source is because they have only existed for around a week, that is why I included the dynamic list template thing at the bottom of most of them. I created them pretty hastily and as for the ones I didn't create, most of them had no references at all before hand. I added the dynamic list template so that more experienced editors might help out the lists.Chadillaccc(talk) 20:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I don't think there is a clear criteria to decide that some cities should have a list and other should not. Why "3 buildings above 100 m" is notable and "2 building above 100 m" is not or why is a building above 40 m notable and one below 40 m is not. The largest building in each city do obtain press coverage in local papers. Perhaps for some of the smaller cities if the local city pages is not to long merging may be more appropriate. --M@sk (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I clearly didn't express my nomination very clearly. I wanted to nominate only those with clear lack of notability in group, and those with perhaps more chance of being notable separately. In general, the higher the buildings, the more attention they get, and the more people talk of a skyline for a city. Buildings of thirty, forty, fifty meters are unlikely to get much attention for their height, certainly not outside their hometown, and if they receive attention, it's rarely because of their height, but mainly for other (e.g. architectural) reasons. Fram (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tall buildings in Canada are notable. For example, here's an article about them: Canadian cities grow upwards. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Error: 404 not found". Furthermore, neither Google, Google News, Google News archives[1], or Google Books has an entry for "Canadian cities grow upwards". Finally, your argument is not relevant for this AFD: List of tallest buildings in Canada is not up for deletion (and I have no intention of doing this, no matter what the result is of this AfD). The question is whether tall buildings, as a group, in e.g. St. John's, are notable enough for a separate article. Fram (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can confirm that the link is broken and that nothing on Google verifies the existence of this purported article. Faking sources again, Colonel? Reyk YO! 05:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd suggest nominating these individually rather than as a group. Some of the individual lists are certainly out of place (a city with no notable buildings and none considered "tall" certainly doesn't need ones), but others have some more notable buildings. Nominating them individually will probably allow for more specific input.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the things Wikipedia strives to be as an almanac. WP:ALMANAC list the height of buildings as one of the things that make a good Wikipedia article. List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region is linked to. Some might find this information useful, trying to determine which buildings are the tallest in each city. Very encyclopedic. Dream Focus 08:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And where do you draw the line? Do you believe that having such lists for every city and town would be acceptable? Or do you believe that there are some minimum requirements, e.g. the size of the city, the height of the buildings, or perhaps simply meeting WP:N? Anyway WP:ALMANAC is not a policy or a guideline or even an essay, but some non-descript page of "the most important featured lists", decided by, um, someone for some reason. Paris, well, has quite a distinctive skyline, with many major buildings, which have received much attention over the years. The Paris list is not up for deletion, obviously. Do you have any arguments related to how these specific lists meet WP:N? Fram (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Help:Five_pillars "It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Wouldn't books about cities list their tallest buildings? Don't all cities have a tourists market? Dream Focus 09:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Wouldn't books about cities list their tallest buildings?" No idea. For large cities, with a remarkable skyline, they well might. For other, smaller ones... Show us a book about St. John's, or Regina, or Saskatoon, that does list their tallest buildings, and your argument will have merit. Otherwise, your reference to the five pillars is without relevance. Fram (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of these pages have blue links in them for some of the buildings mentioned. When a building is the tallest in a city, it gets local coverage at least. If you want to know "where to draw the line" for these sorts of list, then create some guidelines for buildings, and discuss what criteria should be there. WP:buildings Dream Focus 09:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Liek I said above, there is no objection against mentioning the tallest building of a city in the article on that city, if it is a noteworthy thing. This AfD is for lists of tallest buildings per city though, not just for the single tallest one. We have a guideline for lists, and you have not shown how these lists meet those requirements. No new guideline is needed. Fram (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • A list serves in navigation, combining similar things on a page. Out of 19 buildings listed at List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Hamilton,_Ontario only six don't have their own Wikipedia articles. 13 blue links make a good list page. And not every single thing in a list article has to be notable, so please don't anyone delete the entries that aren't blue-linked. Dream Focus 05:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The reason some of these lists exist is the individual city pages are long and it's a way of spinning off some of the content; similar to how "Economy of ...", "Transportation in city ....", etc. have come about. It may be a good idea to look at some of the other places in the world: Template:US tallest buildings lists also has some cities that do not meet the "3 building above 100m" criteria. I think for each of these cities it should be possible to find verifiable 3rd party references. If they are substantive buildings in the community then they do get local press coverage. The criteria for what is substantive likely varies from city to city, a 60m tall building in Yellowknife will get plenty of coverage in the local press; while the same building if built in downtown Toronto would not. It may be best to evaluate each city independently. --M@sk (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly! I agree. The reason I created many of these lists that are being claimed as "irrelevant" was because I sought to strengthen Canada's status as an architectural power. The US has soooo many city lists with buildings less than even 50 meters... yet every single one of Canada's lists have at least one building over 60 m. And every single city listed is over 100 000 people, in fact I believe there are only maybe 2 or 3 cities listed with populations under 200 000. Hamilton and Quebec City are both over 700 000, London, Waterloo Region, Victoria, and Halifax are all above 400 000 in their metropolitan areas, and Yellowknife is quite possibly the smallest city in the WORLD(at 19 000 people) with a notable skyline. So I really don't understand what this whole big deal is about this. All of these cities, save for Abottsford and Sudbury, have readily definable skylines. Canadian cities matter. -- Chadillaccc (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Category:Lists of tallest buildings in the United States has 116 such city lists. I think this is broader discussion than just the Canadian lists. Similar lists existing for other countries. --M@sk (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dream Focus.4meter4 (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all or none' Either delete all of them or keep all of them. I don't think one city should have an article on list of buildings over another city just because one city has higher buildings. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant talk 03:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dream Focus. Alpha Quadrant talk 03:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- While part of me says "meh" at articles breathlessly proclaiming the existence of twenty-storey buildings, these articles do appear to be properly sourced. Reyk YO! 05:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These lists provide a framework for editors in particular cities to take or obtain photos of the tall buildings, and to create articles about them. Even if not particularly tall, some of the buildings maybe architecturally or historically important in their own right, and therefore worthy of having articles. I would say to Keep all these lists, but at a minimum, keep every list for a provincial capital or large city. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dream Focus. I can also see these article being useful to certain readers. Pictures and heights for each city. I would say draw the line if there were an article for tallest buildings in "Backwoods, West Virginia" but I think it would be a good thing to see these articles for all major cities. Creating these lists is up to users and I think Wikipedia has a lot of worth in its lists.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per DreamFocus. The nom seems to come up with some arbitrary number for their own criteria of what topic should have an article. --Oakshade (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like I said above, I expressed my nomination poorly. The ones I nominated seemed to fail WP:N clearly (and I still haven't seen any evidence that they meet it, only assertions that individual entries can be sourced, not that they are notable as a group, which is required by WP:N). I drew the line for my group nomination at an arbitrary place, because the other ones seemed to have more chance of being notable, and thus warranted individual nominations instead. Fram (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Regardless of the height of the buildings in the lists, if they can be sourced, the subject is encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:59, 2 March 2011 (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_St._John%27s,_Newfoundland&oldid=1069644444"