Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cosmopolitan
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.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The_Cosmopolitan
This is an article about a dirt field with surveyor's ribbons on it. Maybe when the casino opens in 2008 it will be notable Endomion 03:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Pboyd04 03:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep this is a major construction project in Las Vegas, highly visible. -- MisterHand 05:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- There you go, we could put it in the List of big construction projects Endomion 06:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Agree, major construction project in Las Vegas. Think it's reasonable to keep. -- Samir Grover 07:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, unless sources are cited to show that the present preparations are considered important (to a much wider audience than the readership of the Las Vegas Review-Journal). Every city has dozens of large construction projects in progress. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- How is this a "crystal ball" article? The project is going on right now, and can be easily seen by anyone. As for notability, Las Vegas is visited by millions of people around the world, and many are interested in the ever-changing face of the strip...which this is a part. Furthermore, there are already several links to the article, which will go red, causing the article to be recreated sooner or later. Do we just keep deleting and recreating the article until this opens? Finally, what about motion pictures in production. Spider-Man 3 has an article, and it's not released yet...should that deleted too as a "crystal ball" article?
-
- Actually, now that you bring it up, yes, articles about future movies, future Mars missions and future gadgets should be deleted too. The future doesn't exist. Books and movies about the future exist, so those articles should be retained. In summary, delete articles about the future but retain articles about movies about the future. Endomion 18:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Then, I expect we will be putting articles like Spider-Man 3 and Freedom Tower up for AFD vote? And I expect everybody voting Delete here will vote to delete those articles as well? -- MisterHand 00:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- The preparations for the Freedom Tower have received national press coverage. Those for The Cosmopolitan have not—or, if they have, you have not cited any of that coverage. I personally do not think Freedom Tower comes under the "crystal ball" rubric. Spider-Man 3 is borderline. If someone were to nominate it I personally would vote to delete it. But I won't bother proposing it myself because my experience is that once a movie has a listing in imdb there will not be consensus to delete. If you honestly believe these articles come under the "crystal ball" policy you or anyone else can nominate them for deletion. However, I would advise against doing so merely out of retaliation or pique; see WP:POINT. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Why would I nominate those articles? I've already stated that I don't think existing, verifiable projects should be covered under the "crystal ball" clause. I was just curious how consistant some of our voters would be -- MisterHand 03:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- The preparations for the Freedom Tower have received national press coverage. Those for The Cosmopolitan have not—or, if they have, you have not cited any of that coverage. I personally do not think Freedom Tower comes under the "crystal ball" rubric. Spider-Man 3 is borderline. If someone were to nominate it I personally would vote to delete it. But I won't bother proposing it myself because my experience is that once a movie has a listing in imdb there will not be consensus to delete. If you honestly believe these articles come under the "crystal ball" policy you or anyone else can nominate them for deletion. However, I would advise against doing so merely out of retaliation or pique; see WP:POINT. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Then, I expect we will be putting articles like Spider-Man 3 and Freedom Tower up for AFD vote? And I expect everybody voting Delete here will vote to delete those articles as well? -- MisterHand 00:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, now that you bring it up, yes, articles about future movies, future Mars missions and future gadgets should be deleted too. The future doesn't exist. Books and movies about the future exist, so those articles should be retained. In summary, delete articles about the future but retain articles about movies about the future. Endomion 18:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep major and verifiable construction project. Kappa 15:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete because the whole thing could go down the toilet tomorrow. This is an encyclopaedia, encyclopaedias are backward-looking. We have no need to cover future events, we do not need to scoop anyone, there is no race to be the first to cover a subject. As yet there is practically nothing to say about this project. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Reyk 23:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Noting that "Spider-Man 3" has an imdb listing prompted me to see whether The Cosmopolitan has an Archinform listing. It does not. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Online search of The New York Times from 2000 through yesterday for articles containing both exact phrases "The Cosmopolitan" and "Las Vegas" turns up no relevant hits. (There were four hits, but in each of them "the cosmopolitan" was simply a phrase, not a reference to the new resort; e.g. "Geoff Hampson of Los Angeles snatched a victory that seemed destined for one of the cosmopolitan teams in contention.") Dpbsmith (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: I should note as a matter of record that I was the creator of the article. However, it was created only because the property was already included in the Las_Vegas_Strip template, and I thought it looked bad to have a broken link in an otherwise informative template. I have no subjective attachment to either The Cosmopolitan or the article itself.
Having said that, I don't think that the crystal ball argument for deletion holds water. This is a major project that is already funded and has already broken ground. It is not "going down the toilet". I don't believe Wikipedia needs an article about every proposed condo project in the Las Vegas Valley, but this is a major undertaking on prime property on the World Famous Las Vegas Strip. It has an appeal that reaches far beyond the local. It will surely merit an article once it is completed, so why delete it now? I can see a use for the article as it exists now, say if a visitor to Las Vegas witnesses the construction and is curious as to what lies in the future of the ever-changing Las Vegas Strip. What better place to sate her curiosity than Wikipedia? Buck O'Nollege 07:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: I can understand that if this was a rumored project or a minor construction, then maybe it would be CFD. But this is a MAJOR construction project that has already BROKEN GROUND. Las Vegas casinos are considered landmarks, they are more than simply hotels. Therefore, when a new casino is currently being built, it is very big news. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] BreakFastClubb 10:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. This is a $1.8 billion project. How many cities have a private construction project that large? The Boardwalk will be closing next week to be replaced by Project City Center to be completed in 2010, likely the most expensive private construction project in history. I suspect that project will get an article also. Projects in Vegas do fail! They also can change a lot before they are actually completed. Many interesting facts about these projects are only easly available during construction, so that is a great time to write the article when many of the technical details are readly available. Much of this data would be encylopedic. Construction projects like Shuttle Ptichka that never were completed are considered encylopedic after they failed, should we delete these? Maybe the question is under what conditions do construction projects become encylopedic? Vegaswikian 07:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per MisterHand. Ridiculously hasty nom. - Liontamer 09:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Which states 'Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.' This opening sentance clearly allows article about major projects. One could even argue that the Ivan Condo, which looks like it has failed, could still get an article. Even if press coverage is minimal, how many people can say they saw it under construction? Vegaswikian 18:38, 3 January 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.
