Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Augusta, Georgia


 * 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. In essance the keep arguments about the significance of the list has not overcome the the fact that there is a dearth of sources that discuss heights of buildings in Augusta, Georgia. Spartaz Humbug! 23:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Augusta, Georgia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Yet another list of tallest buildings in a city where nothing is all that tall, and as usual sourced almost entirely from Emporis. I see not the notability. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per my arguments at Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama, which mainly align with the nomination. I can go into more detail if anyone wants, but it's such a similar case, I don't think I can really add to what I already said in that one.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 18:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Satifies SALAT, Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, LISTCRITERIA and LISTN, which 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, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." Djflem (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)20:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons cited by User:Djflem WP:Not paper; WP:Preserve 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with User:Djflem and User:7&amp;6=thirteen, some interesting reading at "Columbia County puts restrictions on proposed clock tower’s height". Right cite (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Djflem did not provide any sources that prove notability. All current references and external links are to Emporis. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 02:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Ten of them have blue links so its a valid navigational list. Perhaps change it to just a list of notable buildings/locations in that city, linking to all those that have articles for them.  I don't know how notable a seven story building can be because of height.   D r e a m Focus  14:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, in Kansas City.... Seriously, I'd be happy with a selective merge into the article on Augusta, though I would also remark that it's pretty likely a lot of the building articles wouldn't survive a serious challenge to their notability in any case. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Noting a flurry of keep votes from ARS after it has been listed on their page does not a consensus make. Wider community input is always welcome
 * Keep - The contents of list articles don't in and of themselves have to be notable. When lists are created that could contain thousands of entries, it helps if that list is constrained to only notable entries (e.g. List of people from Phoenix), but when there is a topic such as this, when there aren't a lot of potentially notable individual entries, a list article makes the most sense. An argument might be made that lists of notable concepts might be valid for any major city.  Onel 5969  TT me</i> 23:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, generally per my nomination and further arguments at Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama. Unless there's an indication from reliable sources that Augusta has such notably tall buildings as to merit an individual list of them, this article fails WP:LISTN. Since a number of entries on the list are apparently independently notable, I would also support a selective merge to Augusta, Georgia, or renaming/rescoping to List of notable buildings in Augusta, Georgia (or maybe Architecture of Augusta, Georgia). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Having a double digit number of linked inclusions implies that Augusta has enough significant buildings that this list meets the notability threshold, in contrast with the Montgomery list. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 22:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is valid. Balle010 (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - As PMC said, per WP:LISTN and the reasons discussed at Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama. I'll quote the close of that AFD: The difference between cities like Chicago and NYC, on one hand, and Augusta and Montgomery, on the other, is sources. There is no lack of reliable sources entirely about "the tallest buildings in Chicago" and "the tallest buildings in NYC", including full length books. TMK there are no books about the tallest buildings in Augusta, and you don't even find coverage of the topic outside of local sources or catalogues like Emporis. (Arguing that a topic is notable based on Emporis is like arguing that an athlete is notable because they're listed in a sports statistics website.) That said, having a list of, or mentioning in prose, the tallest buildings in Augusta, would be appropriate as a part of the article Augusta, Georgia, or a spinout article (if it were created) about its architecture or notable buildings, as PMC mentioned. Lev!vich 00:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment:The closing statement is a closer making policy, which not neutral POV and is not their job, and cannot/should be not cited as reasoning.Djflem (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless/until overturned at DRV, the closing statement is summarizing consensus, and consensus IS policy. Lev!vich 15:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some sort of link that backs up that claim? (Incientally the closer did not summarize the consensus, did s/he?, but rather added statements which not made in the discussion.) Djflem (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CLOSE. Lev!vich 20:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither link supports your claim, but only refers to function of the closer & the need to base the decision to close as presented in arguments.Djflem (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My claim: ; WP:CLOSE: "The closing editor or administrator will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is...Sometimes, it is helpful for an editor to provide a summary statement of the outcome, if any, when closing the discussion. This optional statement may include both points of consensus and points that are not yet resolved...In general, deletions are discussed at WP:Deletion review...". My claim: ; WP:CONSENSUS: "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy.". Lev!vich 21:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The closer mentioned the "points of consensus" regarding Wikipedia:LISTN. They then proceeded to draw conclusions not discussed it the AFD arguments. So you are suggesting a closer's statements/opinions/conclusions which do not reflect the discussion & are not based on AFD are consensus and therefore policy? Since when?Djflem (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Lev!vich 19:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the buildings on the list are not notably tall. The list does not meet WP:CLN, it does not assist in navigation, and does not serve any purpose under WP:AOAL. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;">  // Timothy ::  talk  14:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Which part of LISTN are you referring to? LISTN 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, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." Your claim appears to be incorrectly citing a different, non-applicable part of LISTN since their is NO requirement to provide RS to discuss as group, is there? Which parts of SALAT, Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, LISTCRITERIA does it not fulfill?Djflem (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per Levivich et al. True, the closer's comment doesn't summarize the discussion as I see it, but it's an excellent argument. We need a reliable source or two to write about the tallest buildings in Augusta Georgia as a class, or group, or contest, or something, before we make a list of them, otherwise we go down the path of writing about anything we find sources casually touching on, whether anyone else uses them for this purpose or not. We document the world's knowledge, we don't create it. The contests for the tallest buildings in New York City and Chicago are well known, the articles Empire State Building and Willis Tower go into great detail. Augusta, Georgia - not so much. --GRuban (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.