Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid

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 of the debate was KEEP —Whouk (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid

Relevant policies: WP:NOT (crystal ball), WP:RS

Supertall building supposedly planned in Japan. No reliable sources - this looks like someone's pipe dream with no substantial chance of being constructed. At any rate, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball — write the article once it's under construction. Sandstein 20:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This Article should not be deleted since it states possibilities of actual creation there as several sources which actually claim that this design is a *possible* solution to Tokyo's overcrowding problem one such source can be found on the Articles Site, In Addition, this Article does not make Wikipedia a "Crystal Ball" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThomasVI (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep unless it's a copyright violation. This article is not a crystal ball, but a report on a serious design, whether or not it has any chance of being built. Should be edited to remove "will" and replace with "would" since this is not a project actually under construction. Fg2 10:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with the above, it's not a Crystal Ball issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zisimos (talk • contribs)
    • Welcome to Wikipedia. How did you find this debate so quickly? --Hetar 18:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: A "*possible*" solution? I'm sorry, we don't try and predict the future around here. Come back when a deal is signed to actually build this. --Hetar 07:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, would ThomasVI please refrain from blanking my comments in the future? --Hetar 18:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, properly referenced and doesn't appear to be an egregious violation of crystal ball guidelines. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, like the above said this is pretty seriously documented wheter it'll be built or not we'll just have to wait and see —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.115.169.195 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep as stated above. Patken4 20:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 00:39, 23 May 2006 (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.