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 Lubbock, Texas. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Lubbock[edit]

List of tallest buildings in Lubbock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The buildings in Lubbock are not of a substantial height to have their own list. This type of list is meant for cities with large skylines, not every city in the United States. The tallest building in Lubbock is under 250 feet (which wouldn't even be in the top 30 in Cleveland) and the city doesn't even have 5 cities over 100 feet. This makes this list worthy of deletion. Fryedk (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 17:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 17:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. I have merged the content into the Lubbock, Texas article and changed the article under discussion into a redirect. I suggest the redirect be deleted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merging and then deleting can cause GFDL and CC-BY-SA problems. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect - not notable enough for its own article, and has already been boldly merged/redirected by Tagishsimon. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dream Focus makes a good point, I found plenty of sources in the other articles. Although I think a merge would be better (since the parent article isn't that long), I'd be OK with keeping too. --Explodicle (T/C) 00:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The description of the taller buildings in the city can better be included in the city article.Gasp2009 (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some of these buildings have their own articles about them, so they are notable. I see nothing wrong with this, or the dozen other similar articles also nominated by the same person for deletion. Dream Focus 22:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Really a pointless list. An 8 story building makes this list? My county just built a jail addition that was taller. I really fail to see the notability in the list. One of the buildings on the list didn't really have it's own article. The article it linked to was a much taller building of the same name in Dallas. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the same reasons as discussed at the ongoing List of tallest buildings in Amarillo AfD. I really don't see which of the usual criteria for deletion were met for this to be nominated. If the standard criteria aren't the reason for deletion, then (per MissionInn.Jim at the other AfD): 1)What criteria will be used to decide what buildings are "substantial" enough to warrant being on such a list, 2) How many are "enough" buildings to warrant creating such a list, and 3) What criteria will be used to decide which cities are the "cities with large skylines" that deserve such a list? Altairisfar_talk 04:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But when would you draw the line? Lubbock has less than 5 buildings over 100 M. If every city in the world that had 4 100 m buildings there would be hundreds of such articles. Fryedk (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & redirect lists of this sort serve little purpose - I think that people would look for this information at Lubbock, Texas. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & redirect -- belongs at Lubbock, Texas at best. Doesn't make any sense to do this as a standalone article. Stellarkid (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - It's very vauge and not notable enough to be a stand alone article, although the information should stay. Airplaneman ^talk 19:33, 30 July 2009 (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.