Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Fort Lee


 * 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 merge to Fort Lee, New Jersey. ST47 (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Fort Lee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

None of the building included in this list are notable. I recently nominated the only one with an article for deletion. Also, most of references do not come form a reliable source. Rusf10 (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Merge to Fort Lee. WP:LISTN does say that the individual items in a list need not be notable for the list to be notable, but I see no evidence of this list as a whole being notable. At the very least move to "List of tallest buildings in Fort Lee, New Jersey", but I don't think that's warranted given the above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be unusual to re-name as suggested to "List of tallest buildings in Fort Lee, New Jersey" as not is not standard for Wikipedia for List of tallest buildings in X", but one can understand the rationale. Please see Talk:List of tallest buildings in Gary for discussion. Djflem (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It is also not unprecedented, with such examples as List of tallest buildings in Providence, Rhode Island and List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon. I'm also unpersuaded by the o !votes in the Gary talk page (although it's fair enough that it shouldn't be a categorical rule to include the state), and personally had no idea where Fort Lee was until I looked into the prose (although that might be WP:IDONTKNOWIT territory). All the same, I still think this fails LISTN, as the main external links that include it as a list also include such illustrious cities as Missoula (no offense to that city, but just something I doubt is worthy of "List of tallest buildings in...") and thus is an indiscriminate collection of such lists. Actually, per the above I'll change my !vote to Merge into the main Fort Lee article. Shouldn't be too much trouble since there are only 7 on the list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Collections of tallest buildings in geographic places are notable as well as being standard at Wikipedia as seen at Stand-alone lists and Category:Lists of tallest buildings in the United States. (One project certainly is notable, being one of the world's tallest twin-towers, but that is not necessary for lists, as is made clear at CSC). Djflem (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Besides being irrelevant, nominator makes false claim "None of the building included in this list are notable.' Djflem (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not a false claim, for the fact that only one of the buildings even has an article. And that article is currently listed at AfD as well (but I already said that above). What is irrelevant is bringing up the fact that the one building is on one of the world's tallest twin-towers, a bloated list where that building doesn't even crack the top 50. It should clearly be removed from the list.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly a false claim, since the nominator has clearly unilaterally inserted their POV (invalid non-policy-based criteria for a nom) as well as decided the outcome of an AfD before it has even been completed. Irregardless, all irrelevant as per CSC.Djflem (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The policy is WP:LISTN which says either the members of the list should be independently notable (clearly not the case) or the topic of the list "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Neither is the case here. Also, did you know irregardless isn't even a real word? I guess not.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Irregardless of whether the word Irregardless is a real word, the policy is Stand-alone lists.Djflem (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/The Modern (building) has closed, so I guess Rusf10 is now prepared to admit that his claim was false? And strike is from the nomination?Djflem (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrong! The result of that AfD doesn't change anything. How about the notability of the other buildings on the list? How about the fact we already have a List of tallest buildings in New Jersey?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What was Wrong! was the claim made by Rusf10 "None of the building included in this list are notable." since Wikipedia has determined that the statement is not true, hasn't it?Djflem (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge either selectively into the city article or perhaps with List of tallest buildings in North Hudson, etc. into a List of tallest buildings in Bergen County, New Jersey. It's quite excessive to assume any and every city in the world with a few tall buildings needs its own list of this sort. Reywas92Talk 21:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A merge may overburden the Fort Lee, New Jersey article as too long.
 * Stand-alone lists-CSC states: Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria: Pertinent:


 * Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.)
 * Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers.  The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources.  For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses.  However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.Djflem (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Fort Lee, New Jersey. Actually, I don't mind a keep either since these lists are generally considered notable and provide useful repositories for information on buildings that don't justify their own article. It is a matter for editorial judgement whether a merge is the best way to go. In this case the page is only seven buildings long and I think a merge would not overbalance the target. Just Chilling (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing is considered "generally notable", it has to meet notability guidelines, in this case WP:LISTN. And WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2019 (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.