List of tallest buildings in Syracuse, New York: (Since August 2019)
 This article relies largely or entirely on a single source.  (Since August 2019)
 This article may contain improper references to user-generated content.  (Since August 2019)  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 22:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 22:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also a Violation of WP:NOTCATALOG PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 22:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note this is one of numerous AFDs on similar topics: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Syracuse, New York Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Columbia, Missouri (2nd nomination) List of tallest buildings in Sunny Isles Beach whose name hides the fact that the AFD proposes to delete tallest buildings lists of areas of more renown: List of tallest buildings in North Hudson List of tallest buildings in Rochester, Minnesota List of tallest buildings in Camden List of tallest buildings in Albany, New York List of tallest buildings in Arlington, Virginia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Haaglanden Sorry this notice of the other AFDs is not timely, I wasn't aware any of these were going on.  Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 15:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New York .  Shellwood ( talk ) 23:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Yet another list of unremarkably tall, mostly non-notable buildings in a mid-sized city, based solely on a now-defunct user-generated database.  The tallest building, State Tower Building , is 312 feet (95 m) tall.  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 01:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update: There are now 13 inline references and one bibliography item in the article (vs. 4 references to Emporis pages previously).   One new one is this list of Syracuses top 10 buildings supplied by Council on Tall Buildings and Urban something, which I guess is a successor to Emporis, may have user-supplied data, I dunno.   I also think user-supplied data can be fine, and I am not aware of any big problems with Emporis data.   Anyhow there are other sources in linked articles, with some now in this article (put in by me).  --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 16:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Further, at the Sunny Isles Beach AFD, B137 commented on May 15 that the Emporis replacement is reliable:  "There is a reliable source, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat , CTBUH, that not only categorizes cities' lists and geographical lists, but that also uses databases or FAA filings to correct the actual height of as built buildings, not just the initial height claims a proposed new building has."  Thank you to B137.  --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 16:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User generated data is against Wikipedia policy PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 01:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning Delete while Syracuse is a notable town.  The fact that these issues have been present since mid-late 2019 makes it seem like it’ll likely not be fixed LuxembourgBoy42 ( talk ) 03:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The "issues" have been addressed; no tags remain on article;  see below.  --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 15:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There are dozens of these articles here: Template:US tallest buildings lists , many of them tagged with similar issues.  Natg 19 ( talk ) 21:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The height/size of city argument clearly does not apply here or should be considered for any article: There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline about heights of buildings.  Any made are simply I DON'T LIKE (and Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT ).  Djflem ( talk ) 20:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per my long-standing and objective essay .  There are at least four notable buildings of significant size.  My standards are somewhat arbitrary but not a "I like" or "I don't like" type.  They are objective because I have specified objective facts.  Bearian ( talk ) 17:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm a little curious, can't this kind of information be included in the article of Syracuse itself?  It just consist of a table and maybe a few paragraphs, and wouldn't be too out of place in a city's article.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 20:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting given the recent suggestion to Merge some of this content to the Syracuse article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ◆ Delete ●No-Say I am not withdrawing my nomination but I honestly don't care anymore.  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 02:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Almost all of these buildings aren't notable, there's only one source and there are no forthcoming fixes to other page issues.  -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 08:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is simply false.  Six of the buildings have separate Wikipedia articles (some of which I contributed to); they are notable individually.  And, the other page issues have been entirely resolved (see below). --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 15:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Syracuse is not known for having particularly tall buildings, just a bunch of trivia.  AryKun ( talk ) 12:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are subjective opinions which are relative.   Obviously, Syracuse is in fact known, in its larger area, for having tall buildings.   It is not trivial information, for many, including me.   And those opinions are not relevant.  --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 15:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for reasons including: About the issues tags, that has been resolved by removal of the tags (by me, just now).  One "complaint" is that only one citation is directly given, but that ignores the fact that linked articles about individual buildings have citations.  I see no specific assertion in the article which is called into question by anyone, anywhere; there are no explanations of any issues at Talk.  And, from familiarity with Syracuse and its buildings in particular, I can generally corroborate the accuracy of the information in the article, including the somewhat informal discussion towards the bottom about an actually significant cancelled proposal for a new tall building.  The listing and ranking of individual buildings seems about right. User:Natg 19 comments that other tallest buildings lists are similarly tagged, and that can be addressed by simply removing the tags (as I am inclined to do) or by developing the articles with additional sources. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP , and sources do exist. Update: my removal of tags including one about there being just a single source was reverted by User:Natg 19, and then I copied in references from linked articles and did other development, and I removed the tags again.  Again, there is nothing in the article which is questioned by anyone.  The fact that the list has  long been part of Wikipedia and its information has not been disputed, tends to confirm the information.  I and others familiar with Syracuse buildings don't have any complaints. --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 16:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In general "tallest buildings" are a thing, and (as noted by Tutwakhamoe above re the Syracuse article) it is okay to cover them in an article about a city or other area, and it is an editing decision to split them out of the city article.  Lists of tallest buildings worldwide, and in each nation, and in major cities, are well established things that are the subject of repeated reliable coverage.   It is okay and good for Wikipedia to have a list of tallest buildings, like it has for other lists of buildings such as churches of every denomination, such as barns of certain shapes, such as clubhouses of various organizations, etc.   And it is okay and good for those to be divided out by geographical area.   Note it is not required for there to be any separate articles for items in a list, but there often/usually are separate articles for some, as is the case here, which tends to corroborate the significance of the list.   Here, some of individual significance of the linked buildings is that they are known as being once the tallest building in Syracuse;  this does support the significance of the list.  AFD is arguably the wrong forum for merger/split proposals about lists; rather it is an editorial decision which should be discussed at Talk pages.   Here, one might question whether the topic could be merged with List of tallest buildings in Upstate New York which could be modified to include some more of the tallest items from Syracuse than it already has, or could be modified to have an entire section about the tallest buildings in Syracuse (I think it is better to keep this as a separate article).   The list could be entirely included as a section in Lists of tallest buildings in New York .   As valid alternatives to deletion exist, there is no way this AFD should be closed "delete".  In AFD we are required to consider alternatives to deletion (wp:ATD) and for lists of buildings such as this there are obvious alternatives (merge to Syracuse article, merge to larger areas' lists of tallest buildings).  Fundamentally, this topic is very encyclopedic , meaning that readers expect for an encyclopedia (and especially for Wikipedia) that this kind of stuff will be covered.  Encyclopedic topics include many that can be seen by some as relatively boring, mundane, not remarkable, but there are audiences for them (e.g. list of national flags by number of colors included, list of tallest building in a given city).  I may add more but am stopping here for now.  --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 15:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep For the reasons mentioned above-- Plumbago Capensis ( talk ) 12:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete- Reasons above PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 19:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and note : Why are these a guilty until proven innocent process?  Many of these are closed with less than half of 'votes' in favor, or based on weighting of opinions.  B137 ( talk ) 01:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this is not a majority vote as it seems you are trying to say.  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 01:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Right, the closer is supposed to evaluate the quality of arguments, and usually should dismiss entirely the "!votes" (note the ! mark means "not" in C-language(?) computer-speak) which have no explanation, such as PaulGamerBoy's above.   Plumbago Capensis's ! vote does seem to me to actually refer to reasons just above it (and perhaps more) which have not been discredited;  PaulGamerBoy's "reasons above" is just being contrary or glib and doesn't relate to anything AFAICT.   Or, is it supposed to be agreeing with "Delete" comments above which have been which have been discredited or contradicted already, i.e. which arguably have been proven wrong?  --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 21:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : These (barely) meet WP:CLN AOAL navigation criteria.  // Timothy :: talk 17:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Doncram above.  Fredlyfish4 ( talk ) 13:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as it provide (embedded) encyclopedic overview and insight into history, architecture, urban planning, development, housing, and lifestyle, of Syracuse.  Satifies Wikipedia:SALAT , Wikipedia:LISTPURP , Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA and Wikipedia:LISTN (which is specific about there not being a consensus about notability of these types of XofY lists).  Djflem ( talk ) 18:51, 21 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep