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


 * 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. SpinningSpark 19:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Cyprus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I started cleaning up this article (which incorrectly came through AfC; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation for details) I found that all of the sources used on this article where not RELIABLE or consisted entirely of OR. I have removed those sources, and having done that, there is nothing left to indicated notability or importance (all of the material is already covered in other broader articles as I understand it). — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 15:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Subject-matter is irrelevant. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see that it's any less valid than any other list in this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that it's entirely unsourced and shows no evidence of notability... — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 18:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please be updated. All information in the page is now linked to Criteria Meeting Sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldstone James (talk • contribs) 16:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is one item on the list with only one source... First, an item doesn't make a list in my opinion. Second, one website as a source does not make the requirement of "significant coverage" per WP:42. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 16:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All other items were deleted due to lack of sources (note that some references were deleted because the source pages did not open for some users) or even links to Wikipedia pages, even though most of articles in Wikipedia categorized as lists have at least one item with no Wikipedia links to it. Also, there are some articles in Wikipedia that have no sources at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.215.22 (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid inclusion reason either. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 19:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. An editor blanking an entire page, except for one item, if that editor is simultaneously the nominator for the page on AfD is a show of bad faith. The template is clear "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed" and blanking all but a single list item is a rather obvious end-run against the spirit of that guideline. K7L (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not blank the entire page, I removed all of the copyright violations and removed all content except what was permissible by policy. Calling me a bad faith editor, is a personal attack from you against me. I, however, do not care to pursue it and instead will AGF on your part.  I've restored the page to the proper condition, as I am "free to edit the page" and it is not blanked. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 17:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You blanked all but a single item. You're wikilawyering here. K7L (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed unacceptable content. This is hardly the same as BLANKing the page. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 19:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain what "unacceptable content" you removed? I can see none whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep — If we're going to keep Category:Lists of tallest buildings in Europe full of pages that are exactly like this, why on earth would we not keep this one? This seems like a totally valid list to have in the encyclopedia. If the content is mostly WP:COPYVIO (that seems to be an implication made in this discussion), lets just put together a new list! I'll also point out that because facts (like the height of buildings) are not copyrightable, I'm pretty skeptical about the WP:COPYVIO claims or at least about the idea that wouldn't trivially rewrite the content to work around this. — m a k o ๛  18:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.