Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mile-High Tower
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. John254 01:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mile-High Tower
This is a building which has not been built. It's not even started being built. In fact, contracts for its construction do not appear to have been drawn up. All we know about it, is that it is a project which some people hope will happen. We've had to delete the article several times due to copyright violation (at The Mile High Tower and Mile High Tower). This is just crystal-ballery at this stage for something that might never happen. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete As per nom Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep Contracts for construction will go out in July, and financing is in place which, as anyone familiar with real estate development knows, is the major hurdle. Once overcome, it is unlikely that a project will be abandoned. Contracts have already been established with Bechtel, one of the world's major project engineering companies. The Atlantic Yards, which has an extensive article, has no financing in place and is far less likely to be completed than this tower. The fact that past articles on this subject (none created by me) have been deleted for copyright violation has no bearing on this discussion. Sylvain1972 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems to be substantiated with sources, and this would be a fairly obviously notable building if it is ever completed. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Very weak keep. I'm personally not convinced that a proposed skyscraper is inclusion-worthy but there are sources to at least substantiate that someone intends to build it. My real preference for this sort of thing would be to merge it in to a list of "Proposed skyscrapers" or something until something more substantial than a stub can be written, but that's just me - it seems to pass minimal inclusion criteria. Arkyan 14:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- It's worth noting that the project is more than proposed, it is in the works. And it is not just a skyscraper, but will in fact be by far the tallest structure ever built. Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- If there's more to be said about this than what the article says, then please indicate that in the article and add sources to verify the information. Neither the article nor its sources indicate that it is anything more than a rich man's dream on paper. Whether it is/would be/will be the tallest structure built is irrelevant without sourcing to indicate it's something more than a pipe dream. Arkyan 17:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- The sources do indicate that contacts have been drawn up and joint ventures formed with the world's leading engineering and consulting firms. That's not the stuff of pipe dreams. The Times of London reported that it "will be constructed" and that it "means the Middle East has opened a strong gap over east Asia in the race for the world’s tallest building." Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- If there's more to be said about this than what the article says, then please indicate that in the article and add sources to verify the information. Neither the article nor its sources indicate that it is anything more than a rich man's dream on paper. Whether it is/would be/will be the tallest structure built is irrelevant without sourcing to indicate it's something more than a pipe dream. Arkyan 17:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that the project is more than proposed, it is in the works. And it is not just a skyscraper, but will in fact be by far the tallest structure ever built. Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Subject has received coverage from multiple sources and suggest that it is certain to occur, thus failing to be crystal material. Apart from that, it's notable as an engineering project within civil engineering circles, not just as a building. Celarnor Talk to me 14:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:CRYSTAL is an argument to be used against articles with dubious sources discussing uncertain and dubious predicted events or information. The tower may be in the planning stages and not yet built, but the article includes three very non-trivial, third-party sources. That establishes notability. Even if the project were to be cancelled, notability would still be assured via these sources (I believe there are articles on similar planned projects of the past; I think Frank Lloyd Wright had one on the books and there might be an article on it here.) 23skidoo (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. There will always be an opportunity to delete it if the project doesn't get off the ground. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This article is definitely encyclopedic even if it is only a stub.--Burzum (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Perhaps it is just a dream, but it's a dream backed by the Kingdom Holding Company, i.e. the House of Saud (billionaires who actually run a country), and Bechtel is just some chump off the street, but one of the largest engineering firms in the world, with long experience building megaprojects, including numerous supertall skyscrapers. I really don't think this can be dismissed so easily. It also isn't a brand new project this last weekend but received press beginning last year, although little of that remains online. In other words, it's sourced crystal-ballery. Proposing to build not only the world's tallest skyscraper but the tallest human structure ever built is certainly a strong claim of notability vs. just any old skyscraper project. --Dhartung | Talk 04:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Per above. A M M A R 18:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as above.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per, inter al., Ed and Dhartung, who advance an understanding of CBALL that is, at least IMHO, consistent with that of the community, and, certainly, IMHO, with that by which we ought to be guided. Joe (I can has barnstar?) 02:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Strongly sourced by MEED, as just added into the entry. Seems very likely that it will go ahead, as tenders are expected within months. (talk) 12:00, 8 April (UTC) —Preceding comment was added at 12:00, 8 April 2008 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
