1007:- 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.
923:'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. --
1045:: The argument to remove these lists makes no mention of how removing these lists would benefit the reader of Knowledge. 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.
1028:: 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?
979:(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,
759:
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
130:
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
859:
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
821:
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
1070:. 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.
1114:
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
726:
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
962:
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
896:
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)
258:
253:
262:
806:
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
245:
860:
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,
304:
299:
1115:
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)
958:- 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
308:
689:
778:
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.
534:
529:
291:
971:(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
538:
396:
391:
400:
521:
442:
437:
383:
166:
161:
446:
212:
207:
170:
90:
85:
580:
575:
350:
345:
216:
94:
584:
488:
483:
429:
354:
153:
492:
199:
77:
567:
337:
475:
968:
822:
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,
295:
845:
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.
123:
525:
939:
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.
387:
287:
652:
615:
433:
157:
517:
203:
81:
571:
379:
341:
479:
964:
249:
425:
149:
195:
73:
65:
241:
563:
333:
1102:
1079:
1054:
1037:
1016:
997:
948:
932:
878:
854:
840:
816:
801:
769:
750:
715:
678:
641:
140:
59:
471:
17:
1131:
913:
976:
1149:
1067:
1063:
36:
1148:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1075:
1050:
1033:
1012:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
928:
57:
1119:
901:
710:
673:
636:
1071:
1062:: The original comment indicating that these lists should be removed does not reference one of the
1046:
1029:
1008:
1127:
924:
909:
1091:
Appropriate lists. The number of buildings on the lists is sufficient to justify having them.
50:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
944:
850:
812:
779:
765:
728:
136:
988:
869:
831:
727:
buildings are in a certain area, then its nice to have an article for that information.
1123:
1098:
905:
704:
667:
630:
601:
555:
509:
463:
417:
371:
325:
279:
233:
187:
111:
972:
959:
940:
846:
808:
761:
132:
980:
861:
823:
1093:
698:
661:
624:
1142:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
690:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
597:
593:
589:
551:
547:
543:
505:
501:
497:
459:
455:
451:
413:
409:
405:
367:
363:
359:
321:
317:
313:
275:
271:
267:
229:
225:
221:
183:
179:
175:
118:
107:
103:
99:
242:
List of tallest buildings in
Charleston, West Virginia
969:
List of tallest buildings and structures in
Salford
48:. Discussion to merge should continue elsewhere. –
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1152:). No further edits should be made to this page.
288:List of tallest buildings in Colorado Springs
8:
131:are nominated here, and should be deleted.
684:
653:list of Texas-related deletion discussions
647:
616:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
610:
518:List of tallest buildings in Winston-Salem
380:List of tallest buildings in Grand Rapids
688:: This debate has been included in the
651:: This debate has been included in the
614:: This debate has been included in the
965:List of tallest buildings in Providence
426:List of Tallest Buildings In Riverside
150:List of tallest buildings in Anchorage
196:List of tallest buildings in Billings
74:List of tallest buildings in Amarillo
66:List of tallest buildings in Amarillo
7:
564:List of tallest buildings in Wichita
334:List of tallest buildings in El Paso
472:List of tallest buildings in Tucson
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1169:
1103:03:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
1080:20:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
1068:Knowledge:Deletion Policy
1055:16:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
1038:15:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
1017:15:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
998:02:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
949:23:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
933:22:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
879:22:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
855:22:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
841:02:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
817:23:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
802:22:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
770:22:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
751:22:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
716:22:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
679:22:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
642:22:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
141:21:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
60:22:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
1145:Please do not modify it.
760:lists about every city.
32:Please do not modify it.
960:SkyscraperPage diagram
1112:Comment and Question
1064:reasons for deletion
1060:Additional thought3
1043:Additional thought2
1026:Additional thought
44:The result was
1136:
1122:comment added by
918:
904:comment added by
718:
714:
693:
681:
677:
656:
644:
640:
619:
1160:
1147:
1135:
1116:
995:
985:
917:
898:
876:
866:
838:
828:
798:
795:
792:
789:
786:
783:
747:
744:
741:
738:
735:
732:
707:
701:
696:
694:
670:
664:
659:
657:
633:
627:
622:
620:
605:
587:
559:
541:
513:
495:
467:
449:
421:
403:
375:
357:
329:
311:
283:
265:
237:
219:
191:
173:
121:
115:
97:
53:
34:
1168:
1167:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1150:deletion review
1143:
1117:
989:
981:
899:
870:
862:
832:
824:
796:
793:
790:
787:
784:
781:
745:
742:
739:
736:
733:
730:
705:
699:
668:
662:
631:
625:
578:
562:
532:
516:
486:
470:
440:
424:
394:
378:
348:
332:
302:
286:
256:
240:
210:
194:
164:
148:
117:
88:
72:
69:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1166:
1164:
1155:
1154:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1106:
1105:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1072:MissionInn.Jim
1057:
1047:MissionInn.Jim
1040:
1030:MissionInn.Jim
1020:
1019:
1009:MissionInn.Jim
1001:
1000:
973:SkyscraperPage
952:
951:
936:
935:
920:
919:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
775:
774:
773:
772:
754:
753:
720:
719:
682:
645:
608:
607:
606:
560:
514:
468:
422:
376:
330:
284:
238:
192:
128:
127:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1165:
1153:
1151:
1146:
1140:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1113:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1095:
1090:
1087:
1086:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1066:found in the
1065:
1061:
1058:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1041:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1003:
1002:
999:
996:
994:
993:
986:
984:
978:
974:
970:
966:
961:
957:
954:
953:
950:
946:
942:
938:
937:
934:
930:
926:
925:Mihsfbstadium
922:
921:
915:
911:
907:
903:
895:
892:
891:
880:
877:
875:
874:
867:
865:
858:
857:
856:
852:
848:
844:
843:
842:
839:
837:
836:
829:
827:
820:
819:
818:
814:
810:
805:
804:
803:
800:
799:
777:
776:
771:
767:
763:
758:
757:
756:
755:
752:
749:
748:
725:
722:
721:
717:
712:
708:
702:
691:
687:
683:
680:
675:
671:
665:
654:
650:
646:
643:
638:
634:
628:
617:
613:
609:
603:
599:
595:
591:
586:
582:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
540:
536:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
494:
490:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
448:
444:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
402:
398:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
356:
352:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
310:
306:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
264:
260:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
218:
214:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
172:
168:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
146:
145:
144:
143:
142:
138:
134:
125:
120:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1144:
1141:
1111:
1092:
1088:
1059:
1042:
1025:
1004:
991:
990:
982:
955:
893:
872:
871:
863:
834:
833:
825:
780:
729:
723:
685:
648:
611:
129:
52:Juliancolton
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1118:—Preceding
900:—Preceding
1132:contribs
1124:11kowrom
1120:unsigned
914:contribs
906:11kowrom
902:unsigned
724:Keep all
124:View log
977:Emporis
581:protect
576:history
535:protect
530:history
489:protect
484:history
443:protect
438:history
397:protect
392:history
351:protect
346:history
305:protect
300:history
259:protect
254:history
213:protect
208:history
167:protect
162:history
91:protect
86:history
941:Fryedk
847:Fryedk
809:Fryedk
807:lists.
762:Fryedk
585:delete
539:delete
493:delete
447:delete
401:delete
355:delete
309:delete
263:delete
217:delete
171:delete
133:Fryedk
119:delete
95:delete
894:Merge
797:Focus
746:Focus
709:) ·
672:) ·
635:) ·
602:views
594:watch
590:links
556:views
548:watch
544:links
510:views
502:watch
498:links
464:views
456:watch
452:links
418:views
410:watch
406:links
372:views
364:watch
360:links
326:views
318:watch
314:links
280:views
272:watch
268:links
234:views
226:watch
222:links
188:views
180:watch
176:links
122:) – (
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
1128:talk
1099:talk
1089:Keep
1076:talk
1051:talk
1034:talk
1013:talk
1005:Keep
975:and
967:and
956:Keep
945:talk
929:talk
910:talk
851:talk
813:talk
766:talk
711:@976
706:talk
686:Note
674:@976
669:talk
649:Note
637:@975
632:talk
612:Note
598:logs
572:talk
568:edit
552:logs
526:talk
522:edit
506:logs
480:talk
476:edit
460:logs
434:talk
430:edit
414:logs
388:talk
384:edit
368:logs
342:talk
338:edit
322:logs
296:talk
292:edit
276:logs
250:talk
246:edit
230:logs
204:talk
200:edit
184:logs
158:talk
154:edit
137:talk
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
46:keep
1094:DGG
983:Rai
864:Rai
826:Rai
695:--
658:--
621:--
1134:)
1130:•
1101:)
1078:)
1053:)
1036:)
1015:)
992:me
947:)
931:)
916:)
912:•
873:me
853:)
835:me
815:)
768:)
713:·
703:·
700:X!
692:.
676:·
666:·
663:X!
655:.
639:·
629:·
626:X!
618:.
600:|
596:|
592:|
588:|
583:|
579:|
574:|
570:|
554:|
550:|
546:|
542:|
537:|
533:|
528:|
524:|
508:|
504:|
500:|
496:|
491:|
487:|
482:|
478:|
462:|
458:|
454:|
450:|
445:|
441:|
436:|
432:|
416:|
412:|
408:|
404:|
399:|
395:|
390:|
386:|
370:|
366:|
362:|
358:|
353:|
349:|
344:|
340:|
324:|
320:|
316:|
312:|
307:|
303:|
298:|
294:|
278:|
274:|
270:|
266:|
261:|
257:|
252:|
248:|
232:|
228:|
224:|
220:|
215:|
211:|
206:|
202:|
186:|
182:|
178:|
174:|
169:|
165:|
160:|
156:|
139:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
56:|
1126:(
1097:(
1074:(
1049:(
1032:(
1011:(
987:•
943:(
927:(
908:(
868:•
849:(
830:•
811:(
794:m
791:a
788:e
785:r
782:D
764:(
743:m
740:a
737:e
734:r
731:D
697:(
660:(
623:(
604:)
566:(
558:)
520:(
512:)
474:(
466:)
428:(
420:)
382:(
374:)
336:(
328:)
290:(
282:)
244:(
236:)
198:(
190:)
152:(
135:(
126:)
116:(
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.