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


 * 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 Timişoara.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  06:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Timișoara

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

unless the list contains a lot of notable buildings (ie those with their own article), then it is not worth creating such articles. the notable buildings can easily be mentioned in city's article. LibStar (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Timişoara. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. No value added to the encyclopedia by having such a silly list. I might support a merge, too, although I hesitate given how goofy a precedent it might set for future lists of "Tallest Buildings" in any given municipality. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  07:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Delete and merge is not a valid AFD outcome, pick one or another. riffic (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He doesn't actually say that, he says delete or merge. Thank you for the link though, I was not aware of the licensing problem. Yoenit (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * he says he hesitates to support merge, sounds like delete to me. LibStar (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Yoenit (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Timişoara. While I generally think that "Tallest Buildings" are a legitimate list topic, not being able to come up with 10 good entries indicates that this is a list not ready for primetime and that the relevant information about the biggest few buildings could be neatly merged into the main article. —Carrite, Sept. 22, 2010.
 * Merge and possibly Redirect to Timișoara per comments above. Could be closed due to WP:SNOW. Jeremy McClean (Talk) 22:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge to Timişoara; cities w/ few tall buildings shouldn't have such list— Chris! c / t 04:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge into the city's article. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  07:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Timişoara.  ∙∙∙  Pep  per   11:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This one is back via Deletion Review after a bit of a premature closure. I still think MERGE is the correct result for this very specific "Tallest Buildings" list due to the lack of tall buildings in Timișoara. If there were 10 good entries, I'd have no issues with it, speaking for myself. —Carrite, Sept. 25, 2010.
 * Delete - unencyclopedic cross-categorization ("tall" building, random city), list not long or notable enough to be meaningful. Of the completed buildings, we're talking about 16 floors max, 12 for most of them, that's just not notable at all and certainly not enough (too trivial) to call for a merge.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: the three buildings with articles also do not pass the notability guidelines and should be deleted as well. There's two counts of WP:CRYSTAL (one is under construction, the other is just a proposal)and one of utter lack of significant coverage (also not completed yet it would appear).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment actually, WP:CRYSTAL clearly says "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." Both of the buildings are verified with sources and therefore are not violations.  ∙∙∙  Pep  per   22:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - You're only looking at one aspect of WP:CRYSTAL, which is the verifiability side. You're forgetting notability. verifiability and notability are two different things. That a building is proposed or under construction can be verified, but unless the proposal or the construction itself are notable, the articles shouldn't be made ahead of time. We cannot predict whether the proposed building will ever be built, or how long construction will take for the other one (due to delays, etc., just as illustration, a friend of mine bought a condo in a tower that has been under construction for a while; supposedly the parking should have been done by last November, and the rest by June 2010, as of now the parking is still not done and the finished condo is expected by May 2011). It's the same as with films and albums prior to shooting or recording. Without evidence of notability in the present, articles shouldn't be made in anticipation of future notability. Besides, even if the buildings were completed now, I doubt they would pass the notability guidelines.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do you not think that if a building is to be the tallest in Romania or Southwest Europe is notable? Both of these claims are cited in Timişoara High Tower and Tender Financial Center. Keep in mind some buildings with lesser notability claims have had articles up to 2 years before the actual building was completed (see 555 Mission Street and/or 3344 Peachtree.)  ∙∙∙  Pep  per   12:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read the notability guidelines and being the tallest building isn't mentioned at all. Being the tallest maybe of interest to the world i.e. causes them to take note - but in and of itself doesn't meet the notability guidelines. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a particularly compelling argument --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasonably sourced and we have similar articles for similarly sized US cities. While sourcing is lighter here, that may be due to language or other issues.  It meets WP:N as far as I can see. Hobit (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the size of the city should have no bearing on whether or not these lists should exist. It just makes no sense for cities with few tall buildings to even have tallest buildings list. IMO, all of them should be merged back to the city articles.— Chris! c / t 04:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it reasonably sourced? Of the whole list only the first three buildings have a single source in their article (one of these looks like a marketing video on youtube), the others have no article and no sources. We have no source at all to say (in combined/comparative terms) these are the tallest buldings, perhaps we should rename it to "List of buildings in order of height for where wikipedia editors have found some sort of source...", which is what it is, a synthesis of the few sources for a third of the list. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2010 (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.