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


 * 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 Speedy as copyvio. Vegaswikian 21:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Hartford

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An list whose accuracy is disputed of buildings which are not linked. Not useful for navigation, and given the accuracy dispute not useful for anything else either. Cruftbane 21:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Cruftbane. ILovePlankton(L—S) 21:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Curftbane and ILovePlankton. STORMTRACKER   94  21:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources and listcruft. How many people will come here looking for this info? Not many.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 21:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nomination there is nothing useful or encyclopedic worth keeping here.  Bur nt sau ce  22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of notability B figura  (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC) !vote changed, see below -- B figura  (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as violating WP:LIST and WP:NOT. Bearian&#39;sBooties 16:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Oh, boy. First off, this list is not listcruft, contains factual and verifiable information, and it's actually useful (albeit for a limited audience such as residents of Hartford, people studying city planning, etc., but that is not enough to delete outright). A user suggested that it doesn't provide sources, except that, well... it does; they're just under the External links section. The real problem with the article is, surprise!, exactly what the template says: its accuracy. There are inconsistencies between the information provided by each source. But Accuracy dispute, an established guideline, does not say delete. It says collaborate to resolve the dispute. Ergo, keep as a useful source of information to a highly notable city in the United States. - Mtmelendez (Talk 17:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And a note to the above users: Regardless of the outcome of this debate, while we greatly appreciate the work you're doing in helping to clean Wikipedia, please read (or re-read) carefully Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. You'll find out that some arguments, such as WP:PERNOMINATOR, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, WP:RUBBISH, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:WHOCARES, WP:IDONTKNOWIT, WP:USELESS, WP:NOTINTERESTING, and WP:LOCALFAME, sometimes don't say anything when not supported and therefore don't contribute much to the discussion. It doesn't mean you can use such arguments, but it'd be best if you'd tell us why you think its not notable, or not sourced, or useless, or listcruft, or violating WP:LIST, or violating WP:NOT... - Mtmelendez (Talk 17:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not notable because it's not discussed in a non-trivial nature by reliable sources. In fact, the list appears to be a blatant WP:COPYVIO without assertion of permission of one of the external links for the article: | see here. -- B figura (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as G12 copyvio of | this. I'm CSD-ing now. -- B figura (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. It was a good catch, the copyvio. It seems the debate is now futile. - Mtmelendez (Talk 21:22, 6 October 2007 (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.