Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultima Tower

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 delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima Tower[edit]

Building not yet constructed, so not notable yet - fails WP:N and WP:Crystal. ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete fantasy of 500-story tower. Speedy delete. Moncrief (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. From WP:CRYSTAL: 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. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. I think that this article is verified from at least a primary source (the designer's website), and the design has been covered in other news sources. Tanthalas39 (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but some other buildings that have been visions has been allowed. Also the building was visioned in 1983. --HAHA70000 (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of which are reasons to keep this article. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to successfully argue to keep this article, please read up on applicable Wikipedia policy, namely WP:V, WP:N, and WP:CRYSTAL. Tanthalas39 (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — there do not appear to be any reliable sources supporting this as anything than one designer's pipe dream. I can't find any sources treating it as either influential, important, or even a "going concern". --Haemo (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's interesting, but interesting is not a reason to keep. When duplicates were omitted, I found 177 google hits. The only new usable source I found among them was this Village Voice article which mentions it as one of many "super buildings." If there were a parent article on such things, I'd suggest merger there. There doesn't seem to be. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to a google search, it brings up about 400 hits, including various newspapers and blogs. The notion that an unbuilt structure does not belong on wikipedia is absurd- certainly the mile high building by Frank Lloyd Wright is notable as well, and similarly, deserves a place in wikipedia --SeanMcG (talk) 02:55, 21 March 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.