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 delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Woking[edit]

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

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

Not Notable ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if its a duplicate. Thanks Jragon &#124 PHP isn't just a language, its a way of life. (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Keep Look it will NOT take long until we add pictures more info ETC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 16 December 2010[reply]

AS it stands the article sould stay!

Delete Hello, I think that these small pages will just anger people, because there is not much information on it. The information is just gathered from other sites which is plagiarism - And as ThePaintedOne said, Woking is a very small place and does not need its own article about tall buildings, you may as well just make an article on tall buildings in Surrey. Thanks -- Jargonia (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I know this person above. He is doing it on purpose with no right reason. He is making it up. Please ignore his comments. Jargonia.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Who keeps adding duplicates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wokingrocks (talk • contribs) 21 December 2010

• They aren't being added, the edits to remove them are being reverted. The reason the votes have been struck through is because Willrocks10 has 'voted' keep three times, and he should only have put up a 'vote' once. Not that it really matters as AfDs aren't actually decided by voting anyway.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Duplicate) Surely part of the appeal of Wikipedia is the information relating to subjects that maybe of little interest to many people but maybe of interest to a minority and I see no reason why this article should cause "anger" as you put it, to anybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Duplicate) Hi I think this article should be kept because Woking has some of the tallest buildings in Surrey. I think it would be unfair and a waste of MY work on this article. I want people to know what's tall in Woking. You never no ever YOU may find it useful. THIS IS WHY I think it should be kept. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Woking doesn't have the tallest buildings in Surrey. Export house, the tallest, is at best the seventh tallest building in Surrey at present and will soon be a lot lower. The Tolworth tower near Kingston is 80 meters and Croydon alone already has five that are taller, one more under construction, three more approved and another proposed. Even ignoring the approved and proposed, that will make Export house the 9th tallest building just in Surrey (and I've not even looked elsewhere than Croydon and Tolworth, so it could be even lower). Never mind the rest of the buildings in this list which aren't even that tall. This whole obsession with Woking as a skyscrper metropolis is just nonsense.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see how this is at all notable. Woking is a minor provincial town. By this I mean no disrespect, I live there and like it, but it's a relatively small town. Equally, none of the buildings themselves are particularly tall or notable, and certainly not notable for being tall. So this just ends up as a short random list of miscellanious information. I initially put a prod on, which was removed without explanation or discussion, hence the AfD.

I added in the list of buildings category to the article so as to give some context here. There are other pages which are 'list of tallest buildings in XXX', but they are all for major world capitals or whole countries, not for towns--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this article VERY useful. A big thank you to the creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wokingrocks (talk • contribs) 21 December 2010 Comment My pleasure! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• CommentI can't help but notice that the user Wokingrocks only created thier account today, and the only editing they have done to date is to comment in an AfD and post a thank you message on the user page of Willrocks10, the article creator. I would invite the reviewing admin to take this into consideration when considering thier judgement.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really do not understand your problem with that! He must like Woking a lot. So he/she must have looked on the category Woking, to find this page and he/she must of been able to workout that I am the creator of this page! Thanks, Willrocks10

• Comment User:Wokingrocks has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Willrocks10. NtheP (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page List of tallest buildings in the United Kingdom links to a number of 'list of tallest building in XXX' articles for the UK, but they are all for cities significantly larger than Woking. The fact that Export house is the tallest building in Woking is included in the page List of tallest buildings by United Kingdom settlement, which I think covers the only vaguely notable fact here adequately, and removes the needs for a distinct page.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy, I just realised that it was added to that page today by the same editor who created this article and the Export house article. The criteria for inclusion on that list is a town population of 100k, and Woking only has 62k. I think this underlines the lack of notabillity here.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi,

As somebody who is on Wikipedia a lot trying to extend the site to help people with, for example, Homework/Project's I am very passionate about adding pages. I do NOT think this page should be deleted as somebody may be doing a project, or something like that, on the history and environment of Woking. As a Wikipedia user I know there is already a page on the History of Woking. It does not refer to the building and structures of Woking much.

I should think you understand that it is a new page that dosen't have lot's of infomation on it. We will be adding infomation to it for people's reference. I also think it SHOULDN'T be deleted because there are other small pages, smaller than my/our, I'm doing it with somebody else, Wikipedia page. Some of them are less significant than our's aswell. I hope you take this into consideration.

Thank You, Pbl1998 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Cut and pasted from article talk page on behalf of Pbl1998 --ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Note

On this link shows the population of WokingWoking's population according to Woking's council — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, that debate is actually taking place on an unrelated page and is not really relevent to this AfD. However, the page you link to specifically states that is the population number for all of Woking Borough, and the page you keep putting the number into is specifically for Woking town. The Borough has a seperate page, which already has the quoted population listed.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Page Woking refers to the whole of WOKING!!!!!

From the first line of the article "Woking is a large town and civil parish that shares its name with the surrounding local government district". The borough population, which is what you are quoting, is already present on the page Woking (borough) --ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

I see about your note on Woking's population, I did NOT do that. It was one of my friend's who is also on Wikipedia. He is a amatuer. I did say to him Woking has ROUGHLY 65k people. I'm sorry for any inconvinience. I will change that soon. The U.K. settlement's page bit on Woking's Export House was also done by my friend, again I'm sorry. I DO understand what you mean. On the OTHERHAND I don't understand you about it being a completely random page. It is(Export House) pretty much, if not the, tallest building around the area-Guilford for example. It is also, in a way, Woking's landmark. This I THINK is another VALID REASON.

Thank You, pbl1998 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbl1998 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you've both edited the same pages at similar times so I got mixed up.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, and not useful. Also unreferenced and shorter than a list. Is only reinforcing already pronounced building height bias - as if it would be the only notable attribute of buildings. --Elekhh (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As it stands, the article will have to go - however I think that the basic information should definitely be put in the main Woking article somewhere, as it is very interesting information. I live near to Woking, and I have always wondered how tall each of the buildings are, so it would be good to keep the information somewhere. It could do with sources of course, but presumably the author has the soure of the information somehwere. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am sorry to say this to you Arriva436 but all you care about is buses so this article should not bother you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks very much for that wonderfully friendly and nice comment. Where do you get the generalisation that "all you care about is buses". I live in Surrey so take interest in the related articles, and so this article is of interest to me. I am perfectly allowed to comment on an AfD for any article on Wikipedia, even on an article about some animal in Australia for example. Anyway, I have a number of interest, not just buses. Just because transport interests me doesn't mean I do not find anything else interesting. I merely commented that I would like to see the content of the article kept, and moved elsewhere. I thought that was a reasonable thing to say to be honest, as there is no way that an article on just tall buildings in Woking is notable. Your attempts to decive, by creating mulipule accounts, does nothing to help the matter. There is not even one source to show that is an important topic for an article. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Duplicate) Sorry Arriva about that although I don't understand why this article sould bother you.

• Delete Not a notable subject, and the very short article currently has no sources. The information can easily be moved elsewhere if needs be. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am terribly sorry Arriva436. The comment my 'friend' put is out of order. I can see that you don't care just about Buses. I'm sorry. If you look on 'our' page we are making changes. If you don't already have it on your Watchlist i advise you put it on your Watchlist. Please accept the greatest of apoligies from me and hopefully 'my friend'. He can be like that sometimes. Pleas look at how 'our' page is developing everyday.

Thanks, pbl1998 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbl1998 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you're missing the point. The article is not being considered for deletion for being too short, or for needing more details or pictures, the problem is that the subject itself is not notable, or least you have not demonstrated this with references. Personally I don't think you'll be able to find any, but that's what you need to do to keep the article.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see any harm done with this article. However, please try to find reliable sources for the info about building heights (perhaps in local newspaper articles or the like). Esn (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I got the info from skyscrapernews dot com. I also got the info my friend who works in the council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Of course articles about non-notable topics do harm as any form of spam. --Elekhh (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does no harm, but it's not notable. Woking is a relatively small town and none of these buildings are at all unusual or even particularly tall. By it's very nature the page can't be more than a very short list of four buildings, two of which haven't even been built yet. If we have an article for this we'll end up with similar pages for hundreds of other small towns around the world that have a vaguely tall building. I think the singular fact that Export House is the tallest building in Woking (not Surrey, it's not even in the top five. There are five taller buildings in Croydon alone, plus the Tolworth tower near Kingston is taller as well) is probably worth having on the Woking page, but it really doesn't need a whole page devoted to this.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'll have to speak to my friend first BUT we COULD do a list of tallest buildings in Surrey-That might be a possibility!? Still, Export House is the 6th tallest building in Surrey-That's got to be notable for something, Hasn't it!?

Thanks, pbl1998

P.S. Please post your views on this idea! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbl1998 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That would certainly be more notable, but I'm not sure it's needed as there are already articles on the tallest structures in the UK, and the tallest in Croydon (which is where most of them will be). there are various architecture groups on wikipedia, and I imagine they have existing thoughts on how to approach this issue, so the best place to float the idea would be there. To be honest though, as new editors I think you are over-reaching with your desire to create lots of new pages. Without wishing to be rude, it's fairly clear that neither of you are all that familiar with how Wikipedia is setup and works, especially with regards refs and notabillity. I think the best thing to do would be to work at improving existing articles for a while. For example, when you added Export House to the Woking page, that was a reasonable and constructive edit (but it needs a cite). If you spend some time doing improvements like that, I think you'll find it a lot easier to learn the ins and outs of how wikipedia operates, before taking on creating new articles. Also, most existing articles have 'resident' editors who watch over them (as I am for Woking, which is how I came upon this in the first place) who will usually help you out with the edits you are making. Whereas new articles have a tendancy to fall into AfD pretty quickly, especially for newcomers who haven't got to grips with notabillity, which is an altogether less friendly place to be. You are of course free to edit as you want within the rules, and being bold is a virtue here, I just think you'll have a more positive and constructive experience working with other editors rather than in striking out on your own.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC) (By the way, when you make a comment press the signature button at the top of the edit window, it looks like a pen writting. That will put your name after your comment as I've done here.[reply]

Hi,

I am perfecteley aware of how Wikipedia works. Thank you for your help but I am aware of how to use Wikipedia. I and my friend have set this page up for the reference of people who may need it. This page does not need to be deleted-We WILL add to it.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You clearly don't as you consistently miss the point of notabillity, citations, didn't know how to do inline cites, until recently never signed you posts, your friend keeps making disruptive posts which are essentially vandalism and you don't listen to consensus or advice. None of this is how wikipedia works. I've tried to help, I've actually put some effort in to improving your other articles which are of marginal notabillity but not as bad as this one, and provided constructive advice on how you could proceed. Never mind, we'll see how the AfD pans out. In the meantime I strongly suggest you talk to your friend about his vandalism posts, as he's going to get banned if he carries on like that.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exuse me painteone I will get You banned if you carrie on like that. I found that comment above quite rude.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I find your post quite rude. I DO KNOW how to use Wikipedia. My 'friend' is 100% rude -I know that. I have tried to talk to him but he just dose NOT listen. Anyway, don't use these way's to get our page deleted-We've put alot of effort into these pages.

Comment[edit]

OH THANKS A BUNCH Peter! You call me rude? Well actually your being rude! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

As I mentioned earlier we could do a list of tallest building's in surrey. We COULD also do something like 'Infomation on buldings and structures in Woking'.

pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

We are NOT copying of other websites-Please don't assume we are. We are also putting sources. We have done it 100% ourselves.

pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Woking. NtheP (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With all due respect to Woking, I can't see much interest in an article on the highest buildings there. London, New York, Manchester - OK. Possibly add the highest to the Woking article. Being 'harmless' isn't a reason for keeping as such (although the converse does apply...). You could have a very harmless article on the Highest Buildings in Downby-in-the-Swamp (currently the highest is Mrs Fenton-Soghi's house ever since the church spire fell down and demolished the then second highest as well). Look - we're not trying to put you off creating articles. We want ones that fit a certain standard of notability and are not just listcruft (there's a reference for that that I can't remember, sorry). Peridon (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a brief summary to Woking. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

If you look now we have made some good ADJUSTMENTS. Small things like pictures and info on other buildings and structures in Woking that are defintaly notable. I, by this I mean no offence, find that the church spire falling onto the second tallest Building/Structure quite funny. PLEASE don't take any offence.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. I hope you noticed the name of the lady living in the tallest building - the hyphenated part of her name is pronounced as an Italian word... (Downby-in-the-Swamp is one of my minor creations.) Peridon (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No Change, it's good to see that you are trying to improve the article, but I don't think these particular additions help. None fall within the scope of the article you've created (list of tallest buildings), so the article is now wandering into a general list of notable things in the Woking area. You could rename the article to something along those lines, but it's going to end up being very vague and duplicating other pages. Two of the four already have an article, and all four are listed on other pages.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2010 (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.