Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torre Fundadores

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. --Selket ^Talk 21:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torre Fundadores

Future building. Single external link as reference. If the project is listed on the linked site, I can't find it. (Declined prod) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - this article is poorly written and inaccurate but a rather quick search proves that this building does exist (in plan). [1], [2] and the developer's page [3] for starters. Scheduled to begin construction next year. I'll clean the article up. Arkyan 18:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clean-up Arkyan, but it's still only a proposed (and not even municipally approved) building. At what point does a putative building deserve an article? I would have thought not until ground was broken, or after it was approved at the very earliest. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Similar articles have survived deletion discussions based on the fact that they are attributable (sourced). There exist several articles for structures that were imagined but never built and almost certainly never will be - again, the bar for inclusion seems to be whether there exist enough sources to indicate that the building - or even the possibility of it's being built - is notable. Arkyan 20:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, as at the moment sourcing is thin (one primary source, one that is barely more than a blog, and another that is basically a user-editable directory). We don't have a buildings corollary to future films guideline; I'm not opposed to proposed-and-almost-certain structures having articles, but I would really prefer to see some stronger sources and there don't seem to be any in Google News Archive at the moment (which, yes, has a bias toward English-language sources). No prejudice against recreation when such appear. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are [4], [5], [6] and [7] sufficient? It only took me about 15 minutes of searching to pull up several very recent articles on this building. There are others, too, that I've not bothered listing. Apparently they're talking about upping the height which would make this taller than anything in Latin America, which if you ask me is yet another point in favor of keeping. Arkyan 13:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have a long tradition of treating 'proposed buildings' as if they were buildings in terms of their notability. See Chicago Spire, Crystal Chain etc. etc. proposals are the life blood of architecture, many don't make it to the construction site but that doesn't diminish the influence of an idea. The important thing is architectural notability, not whether the building is or isn't built yet, tall buildings are generally inherently notbale, what we need to look for is sources in the architectural press to establish architectural notability although this building may have geographic notability due to its size and prominence in the locality - so local/national press would suffice. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2008 (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.