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

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The result was nomination withdrawn . LibStar (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Cairns

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the buildings listed are notable. The biggest is a mere 56m. Also nominating

List of tallest buildings in Townsville

LibStar (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These cities are not big enough or high enough to merit these articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How big do they have to be and why that size? I am presuming you mean in relation to population. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Save. These two cities are bigger than Darwin which is not subject to deletion. They took a lot of time to write as I contributed to both they do need more citations which will help improve them. The Hobart page also has no skyscrapers but is that page still suitable for inclusion? CHCBOY (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the Hobart article lists a number of notable buildings. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to which, Hobart and Darwin are both state/territory capitals and therefore, while maybe not as large as Cairns or Townsville, are considerably more significant and well-known on the world stage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Must items on lists be notable according to any guideline? - Shiftchange (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't actually provided a rationale for keep. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the original rationale for deletion is invalid. The list contributes to the sum of all knowledge. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

should we then have List of tallest buildings in Griffith because that would add to the sum of all knowledge too. LibStar (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, searching at skyscraperpage.com search on "Cairns" or "Townsville" gives info, but searching there on "Griffith" does not. --do ncr am 04:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, definitely, the items in a list do not need to be individually notable for an article themselves. Many lists in Wikipedia are defined to include only items that are notable / have articles, but that is not at all required, as is covered in wp:LISTN. In fact it's good to have list-articles to allow for coverage of items, to allow for redirects to the list-article, rather than pushing editors to, say, create an article about each separate tall building in Cairns. --do ncr am 03:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (revised from "Keep, tentatively") What is the source of building heights? Can sources be added? Anything about the topic of building heights in Cairns? Towards establishing the topic of tall buildings in Cairns is a topic, which is noted to be sufficient for keeping (not necessarily required) at wp:LISTN. It is said above that "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is not an argument. In fact, the existence of other comparable list-articles DOES matter, is relevant. We need to work towards consistency now. It used to be that Wikipedia was so incomplete that it was hard to make reasonable comparisons. Now there are reasonable comparables. They do matter. Why indeed these 2 list-articles, when not others on the navbox linking amongst Tallest buildings articles for various Australian cities? --do ncr am 03:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, there is Emporis source in the article, about heights of 20 tallest buildings in Cairns. Also there is this skyscraperpage.com page about tallest buildings in Cairns, covering 13 buildings. That is 2 reliable sources about the topic of tall buildings in Cairns. (And skyscraperpage.com gives these 18 buildings in Townsville, apparently the 12th largest urban area in Australia). It would be nice to have some text discussion source too. See other Tallest buildings list-articles in other countries. These kinds of list-articles are one really good thing in Wikipedia, they are useful/interesting, it's what Wikipedia does well. --do ncr am 03:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, invalid reason for deletion, as there is no requirement that all or any of the entries on a list have to be notable for the concept itself to be of interest. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, unreasonable reason for deletion. The pages have enough details (and buildings) that are interesting to compare with others and by itself, just as the USA equivalents. I've just added in the Central Park development which is huge thing for Cairns. UnbreakableMass (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Doncram. If Emporis has a listing, a reliable source and database dedicated to skyscrapers in relevant cities, than I'm convinced. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your support in wishing to keep the article. I started it back in April 2013 but have not contributed to the article much due to the stagnant building sector in Cairns. Hopefully things will change soon with all the towers planned for Nova and Aquis both going ahead. The article can only expand and get better in the years ahead.CHCBOY (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.