Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Missoula, Montana

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 redirect to Downtown Missoula#Largest buildings. Black Kite (t) 14:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Missoula, Montana

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

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

None of the buildings are notable because of their height and the tallest building is an 11-story university dorm, hardly unique for college towns of this size. Sources are all local and none indicate notability. JonRidinger (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Notability" of what, tallness in Missoula? I see bluelinks in this list, so both the buildings and their location are notable, and listing buildings in a given locale by their relative height is hardly a novel presentation of information. We don't just limit list inclusion to facts for which subjects are notable, which in any event you are equivocating to mean significance. So we should keep this somewhere, either as this standalone list or merged somewhere. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick look at the main Missoula buildings category turned up list of buildings and structures in Missoula, Montana, which has a section that appears to duplicate this list. I am indifferent as to whether this list is just redirected there as a duplicate (which could hae been done without an AFD) or maintained as a separate split-off list. postdlf (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The presence of some notable buildings and places does not mean the list itself is notable. List articles are still articles, so their main topic should also have some kind of notability. Some of the buildings, like the tallest Aber Hall, aren't even their own articles (Aber Hall redirects to Campus of the University of Montana, which itself is mostly lists). The link to Jesse Hall goes to a building at the University of Missouri. Four buildings on the list (Millennium Building, Garlington Building, First Interstate Center, and First Security Bank) have articles, but each have limited sources that simply verify the buildings exist, not that any of them are notable. Each article could easily get deleted on its own. The only buildings on the list that have proven notability are the Wilma Building and the Florence Hotel, both of which are on the National Register of Historic Places, which is mainly what List of buildings and structures in Missoula, Montana covers. This particular list seems to have been created because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In searching for other "tallest buildings" lists, though, generally much larger metro areas come up that have buildings that are notable because of their height and are part of notable skylines. Smaller cities like Missoula generally don't have notable skylines. Heck, my own hometown has some buildings even taller than what they have in Missoula, but that doesn't mean a "tallest buildings" list is needed or that the skyline is notable or even known outside this area. But really, the air traffic control tower? The Hilton Garden Inn? --JonRidinger (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though the standards you're describing for lists are not that strict in practice (or at least do not apply to all kinds of lists; it is not necessary that all lists are notable themselves as groupings), you have a point about the misleading bluelinks. The best result would be just to redirect this to the corresponding section of List of buildings and structures in Missoula, Montana. postdlf (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The other purpose of list articles that I thought about later is to prevent a list from dominating a "parent" article (like breaking off a list of notable natives and summarizing it in the parent article). There is no danger of this list dominating the Missoula article. And in this case, I think the topic of the list does need its own notability, even low notability. That's why articles on larger cities can justify having lists like these: the buildings and the skyline collectively have some kind of notability. I thought about a redirect, but what purpose does that serve? Are people really going to search for the List of tallest buildings in Missoula and need this to redirect them to the list of buildings? I wouldn't flat out oppose a redirect, I just don't see the point of it. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - For a small town, a list of tall buildings is not notable because the height of buildings are very short and the skyline is not significant. These lists are intended for large cities only and should not be created for small towns.—Chris!_c/t 02:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A clearly defined list of notable entries. So what if it's a small town with small-tall buildings? This is part of a bigger scheme of tall buildings by city. Lugnuts (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOTS of cities have buildings that are just as tall or taller than anything in Missoula, especially college towns with multi-story dorms. Without some kind of limit, then every city article can have a "list of tallest buildings" that could include people's homes and a host of other non-notable structures, especially in very small towns. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What is a viable article for a large city with many tall buildings (many of which, as Lugnuts points out, have similar articles) is not a viable article for a smallish city without many tall buildings (and with no buildings at all of any great size). And yes, most of the articles bluelinked from here should also be deleted as non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - to Missoula, Montana. Look, I've been to Missoula six or eight times. This list makes as much sense to me as List of dwarf opera singers by weight. There are no notably tall buildings in Missoula. They've got a big M on the hill, I'll bet five bucks a sourced article could be written about that... But the content here should be a brief mention on the city page. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Downtown Missoula article (which I'm not excited about either) already has the chart in it at Downtown Missoula#Largest buildings. In the greater scope of city articles, there really isn't need to mention the buildings by height because Missoula doesn't have a notable (or even recognized) skyline. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Downtown Missoula#Largest buildings, as per the above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The topic of high buildings in this random small town is not notable because of the lack of works dedicated to it. See also WP:IINFO. Do not redirect; not a likely search term.  Sandstein  07:15, 1 November 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.