Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick, New Jersey


 * 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 redirect to New Brunswick, New Jersey. The sole keep arguments here don't quite work - all arguments on Talk:List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick, New Jersey are about the page title. As for CSC/SAL it's pointed out in Stand-alone lists "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.)" and it seems like most people here don't see a reason to keep a separate list - plus that guideline is more about inclusion criteria in lists than on the question of whether a list should exist in the first place. The WP:NLIST point has not been rebutted either. I am going by a redirect here as there seems to be some disagreement on whether some content could be kept in the target article, thus leaving the option open to copy content over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick, New Jersey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A list of mostly non-notable buildings. Even those with links are mostly redirects to other pages. As per WP:LISTN, even if the members are not notable, the list may be notable if discussed as a group by independent reliable sources, this is not the case here. Also, these building are not very tall. The tallest is 299ft which according to our article on Skyscrapers is far short of the 492ft that would result in that classification. Rusf10 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete "Tallest buildings in city" requires some form of independent coverage, otherwise it appears to be, prima facie, trivia. "Tallest buildings (all under 100 m) in (city with less than 60000 inhabitants)" is, without a shadow of a doubt, and the likelihood that there are sources discussing such a group seems unlikely, the only I could find is this, and it is not "discussing the group" but rather appears to be merely some form of database (edit: and WP:UGC at it, per below, so not even an adequate source), which falls under WP:NOTDIR, thus fails to meet WP:LISTN. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Best I can tell, that website (emporis.com) is WP:UGC and shouldn't be used at all.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge into New Brunswick page per discussion with regards to Fort Lee if felt needed/desired, but do not keep as an independent article per above. Especially if Emporis.com turns out to be WP:UGC (I just thought it was inappropriate since it was an indiscriminate collection of information.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Consensus to keep this article was established at Talk:List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Additionally perStand-alone lists-CSC states: Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria:, specifically, which this list clearly satifies:
 * 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.
 * Also, the article on skyscrapers mentioned in the nomination is not of importance here as that has nothing to do with it. Djflem (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What does a requested move have to do with consensus to keep (hint: nothing) ? Also, WP:INTERESTING/WP:USEFUL are non-arguments (I could very easily make the opposite claims), and the criteria of WP:LISTN that "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables" still stands: unless there is a WP:RS discussing (i.e. that word is important, a mere listing of the buildings without commentary is not sufficient) the grouping, then there is no sufficient coverage to warrant an article. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hint: EDITCONSENSUS Consensus through editing is a core policy and fundamental to Wikipedia.Djflem (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That consensus doesn't apply in this case - the subject question of the requested move was whether to move to article to a different title; which is a different question than whether to delete it - please look at WP:DELAFD (and pages linked from there) which is the relevant guide for deletion discussions such as this one; it takes precedence per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS since it is project-wide policy. Or in more simple nearly mathematical terms: RM ≠ AfD and AfD >> RM (in this situation). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, an article's history and the consensus at Talk:List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick, New Jersey is relevant to this discussion since it clearly establishes that a number of editors (more so far than in this discussion) had considered the matter & through their contributions established a consensus to keep it at that time. Shall we ask them?Djflem (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There was not consensus to keep. The question being asked was not whether the article should be deleted, but what name should it have? Completely different question, but even if there had been a previous deletion discussion (which clearly is not the case), consensus can change.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Duh! What absurdity! Clearly there is a consensus to keep an article if editors have a discussion about the name of the page and decide to re-name it. They decided to keep the page named List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick, New Jersey instead of List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick, didn't they?Djflem (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems like WP:IDHT from above. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would agree. So shall we asked those who participated in the earlier discussion about a name change if by their edits they indicated that the article is/was one that they believe should be kept? Yes or no?Djflem (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments like "Duh! What absurdity!" might indicate a need for you to see WP:CIVIL. You have already been told many times that that discussion has no bearing here, and that even if it had, consensus can change. As for asking those who participated there, that might constitute WP:CANVASSING - they are certainly aware of the deletion process (thanks to the notice on the page) and participation is a choice they can make themselves. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your opinion about what has bearing and who is certainly aware of the AfD process. Would seem WP:APPNOTE appropriate notification would be in order, just to be sure, since, of course, consensus can change and the AfD process benefits from participation? Djflem (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * CommentThe list contains three notable buildings for which there are independent articles and two for which there are redirects where they are discussed: The Vue, New Brunswick Performing Arts Center, Johnson and Johnson Plaza, Skyline Tower and The Yard.Djflem (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a single one of these buildings even reaches 300 feet and few are notable. I'd say to merge to List of tallest buildings in New Jersey but none even meet its inclusion requirement! This is quite excessive to list these as tall buildings, this is not necessary for every place with a handful of moderately sized office buildings. The few tallest could be merged to New Brunswick article. Reywas92Talk 21:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So you are suggesting a selective merge?Djflem (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

participants in Talk:List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick, New Jersey Djflem (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Appropriate notification as per WP:APPNOTE:
 * Delete (pinged above). Frankly, the RM participants focused so much on the aspects of titling and disambiguation that no one at the time bothered to look at notability of the article. Now that I looked, I agree with the first poster above that it fails LISTN: it's a list of not-very-tall buildings in a not-very-big city, and no RS coverage of them as a group exists to justify existance of this list. No such user (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The list contains three notable buildings for which there are independent articles and two for which there are redirects where they are discussed: The Vue, New Brunswick Performing Arts Center, Johnson and Johnson Plaza, Skyline Tower and The Yard. There is no requirement for lists of tallest buildings that they be skyscapers or be located in a major city. Stand-alone lists-CSC outlines the policy. Additionally there is coverage discussing the phenomenon of such a city as New Brunswick being redeveloped with taller buildings mentioned in following:

Djflem (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * *https://newbrunswicktoday.com/article/high-rise-apartment-building-shops-decorate-new-street-0


 * 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.