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

Add links
Source: 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. Discussion to merge should continue elsewhere. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Amarillo

List of tallest buildings in Amarillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The cities in which I have nominated do not have enough buildings of a substantial height to have their own list. Many of these lists already exist, and are meant for cities with large skylines, like New York and Chicago for example. Cities like Amarillo with less than ten buildings over 150 meters are nominated here, and should be deleted. Fryedk (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all There is no reason not to list this. Is it not encyclopedic to have information like this? A building's height shouldn't be considered less spectacular simply because some other city has something bigger, or more tall buildings than they do. If someone wants to look up what all the tallest buildings are in a certain area, then its nice to have an article for that information. Dream Focus 22:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every city can't have its own list. Many of these pages only list 5 buildings, and the majority of these buildings don't have their own pages. In the city's own page a brief reference to the few tallest structures could be made, but unless the city has a remarkable skyline, there is no need to make lists about every city. Fryedk (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why can they not have their own list? The wikipedia isn't running out of space. And who determines if the skyline is remarkable or not? The local news would comment on it, making remarks about it. Dream Focus 22:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Billings has a population under 100,000. There are 250 cities with populations over Billings and most do not have such lists because their tallest buildings do not rise to a substantial height. WP does not need 250 such lists.Fryedk (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that such lists are not created based on city size, but by high-rise count. Billings may not be the site of as many high-rises as New York City or Chicago, but it is the location of all of the tallest buildings in Montana and many of the tallest structures in the Mountain states outside of Denver. We don't need 250 lists, and we would never have that many (right now, the count is 92, and it hasn't increased) as not all larger cities have high-rises. Cheers, Rai•me 02:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having less than 10 high rise buildings isn't very much, which all the cities i nominated have less than. In some cases, like Lubbock, there aren't even 5 over 100 m. Fryedk (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a list only needs 10 entries to become an FL. I think many of these cities can be expanded to more than 5 or 10 buildings - it appears that 10 buildings was just used as the cut-off point for some. I'll try to work on them. I think that if a city has 5 high-rises or less (as is the case with Lubbock), then perhaps a merge with the city article is more appropriate (depending, of course, on the length of the city article). But we should have definite criteria before carrying out any merges/deletions. Cheers, Rai•me 22:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the smaller lists to the cities articles. The information is useful and would be helpful on a city page, but in some cases the list is very small and will not be expanded due to lack of high rise buildings. 11kowrom 22:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11kowrom (talk • contribs)
  • 'unsure' Although I did start the Grand Rapids page I do not feel every city needs one. I do think that Grand Rapids is significant for several reasons. First GR is the second largest city in that state of Michigan. Next the number of buildings is not a lot there is some significant since one of those is also the tallest residential building in the state. Lastly the city is still building tall towers. The future is uncertain but for the time being I do some need. I will not comment on the other cities since I have not looked at them but I do think each city needs to be evaluated individually. --Mihsfbstadium (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the pages have to be deleted necessarily if they can be proven notable. I still want to get the point across that not every city needs to have a list. Fryedk (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - most of these lists can be substantially expanded, particularly Winston-Salem, Wichita, El Paso, and Grand Rapids. I especially agree with Mihsfbstadium that Grand Rapids should have a list; the city's SkyscraperPage diagram indicates that it has a quite a few tall, notable buildings. There is no standard that cities with no 150 m+ buildings and/or small populations should not have tallest building lists - we have many FLs for smaller cities with smaller skylines, including List of tallest buildings in Providence and List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford (the latter of which only has two articles for its buildings). The only city I can see a good argument for deleting/merging is Riverside; that city really has very few high-rises according to both SkyscraperPage and Emporis (the two largest building resource websites). I agree that not every city should have a tallest building list, but these cities (with the exception of Riverside) meet the criteria of having several high-rises that are notable and/or rank among the tallest in their respective states or regions. Cheers, Rai•me 02:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While it is true that every city doesn't "need" to have a list, the question that should be answered is whether or not the list is helpful to the reader. I think it is reasonable to include a list of tallest buildings for any city, since there are probably readers out there somewhere that might be interested in such information, even if that person is a gradeschool student doing a report for school. Whether it is more appropriate to have a separate list, or just be part of the main article for the city, would seem the better discussion to have. I find that any list that gets too long, especially tabled lists, should be on a separate article because long lists tend to detract from the main article when the list is embedded. Then the question becomes how long is "too" long, and that is an asthetic question that everyone sees differently. Therefore, I would recommmend leaving the lists as they are, but I if someone feels one ore more of these lists should be merged, I recommend you merge them, then request the separate list be deleted. Someone put some effort into all of these lists, and that should be respected. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional thought: If these list articles are deleted, then it would be helpful if somone could provide answers to the following questions: 1)What criteria will be used to decide what buildings are "substantial" enough to warrant being on such a list, 2) How many are "enough" buildings to warrant creating such a list, and 3) What criteria will be used to decide which cities are the "cities with large skylines" that deserve such a list? MissionInn.Jim (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional thought2: The argument to remove these lists makes no mention of how removing these lists would benefit the reader of Wikipedia. If they could frame their argument in the context of what is best for the reader, it would be helpful in understanding why it is important to delete these lists. I didn't create any of these lists, and I wouldn't have a problem if someone decided to merge them, but I would hate to see useful information trashed because of someone's personal preference. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional thought3: The original comment indicating that these lists should be removed does not reference one of the reasons for deletion found in the Wikipedia:Deletion Policy. After reviewing the possible reasons, I feel more strongly that these lists should stay. No good explanation has been provided to say why these should be deleted. If there is a standard, or style guide, to be followed for these types of lists, please include a reference to that standard. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appropriate lists. The number of buildings on the lists is sufficient to justify having them. DGG (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Question I am not for deletion of these lists. However, I want to ask what exactly would differentiate a city deserving a list or not? 10 high rises? 5? Or does a city qualify if if it is the center of a geographic region (as one user suggested was the qualification for the Billings page. Obviously we wouldn't want a list of some small town, but what about other small cities like Billings? Would Flint, MI deserve one? Duluth, MN? What would be the criteria to decide?11kowrom 22:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11kowrom (talk • contribs)
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_Amarillo&oldid=1138025891"