Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futurist architecture

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 07:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Futurist architecture

Non-notable, original research, hopelessly POV. Furthermore, it doesn't define "futurist architecture", and I'm not sure it's even a word. Google reveals only 1,170 edits, poor for an architectural movement. [1] If anything, I am not aware the post-modernist movement has had a successor yet. * Delete. Natalinasmpf 09:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - omg, don't tell me post-modernism still reigns. Kind of like Queen Victoria? --Mothperson 15:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Redwolf24 09:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No disrespect, but maybe y'all should actually read a few of the Googled references. This article is a poorly written substub, but it's referring a legitimate part of Futurism, the art movement from around the beginning of the 20th century. See here. Admittedly, they were bigger on manifestos then actual buildings, but it's certainly notable enough subject for a self-respecting encyclopedia. (Oops, sorry, forgot to sign - Calton | Talk 11:56, 10 July 2005; added 00:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC))
• Keep Small, but exists. I do not see anything to warrant to the other two tags of dispute and original research. Enlighten me? PostModernistIdiot 14:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with the self-styled idiot jamesgibbon 15:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep very very notable. David | Talk 15:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, obviously, though I don't blame the nominator for not recognising this. Nobody not familiar with the early twentieth century art movement of futurism and the work of architect Frank Lloyd Wright (Prairie Style) could be expected to make any sense of the text. Shows just how bad an article can be and still be worth keeping. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup/expand. Tony Sidaway said it right, but it definately needs to be improved. -mysekurity 17:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand/cleanup. Notable form of architecture but current article isn't much chop. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 11 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.