Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Globus Cassus

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Globus Cassus

• Delete This article does not deserve article status, it's non-notable and it's nothing more than a whacky idea/joke of which it's kind has no place or perpose on wiki. It's impractical and much less impossible. Faris b 06:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep this article. However much one may dislike the subject matter there are no grounds for deletion of this article. The Globus Cassus project was proposed - and published - by a notable architect in notable circumstances (the Venice Architecture Biennale), it has been widely discussed and is therefore worthy of an article. It is worth noting that Globus Cassus is largely a thought experiment, since there is no pragmatic basis for its implementation in the near future anyway. With that in mind, the project is akin to many other "futurist" proposals such as terraforming, interstellar travel, time travel or closed ecological systems that if ever realised would undoubtedly pose major problems, but that are unlikely to be realised anyway and that, right now, serve as thought experiments. There are articles on myriad horrendous subjects (Mein Kampf springs to mind), but none should be deleted merely because they're horrendous. There is no way deletion is justified in this case. Pinkville 13:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Pinkville. —Keenan Pepper 14:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• I believe comparing this to terraforming is not just, because terraforming has been around for a while, at least the idea and has been mentioned/done on many Sci Fi series while this has not therefore, I believe this is not notable, at least not notable enough. Faris b 04:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The newness of an idea is not grounds for its being described as non-notable. Far from it. Look, if you want to argue against any proposal to actually implement Globus Cassus, please go ahead, though I don't believe the necessity will ever arise, since the project is hopelessly impractical. Please re-read and consider this description of the project (from the article): Globus Cassus acts as a philosophical model for the opposite-based description of the Earth/World and as a tool to understand the World's real functioning processes. That is a critical caveat to the basis of your objections, which, anyway, are groundless since we're talking about an article about Globus Cassus, not the project itself. Pinkville 13:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per Pinkville. It's a notable work of art and a striking idea. It's also the subject of an art book. Definitely notable. --Cyclopia 22:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Are you people kidding? This article is whacked. It's not a striking idea, it's horrifying, appaling, terrifying and just plain whacked. This idea is impossible, plus, what happens if it broke down which you know it would? Everyone dies! Fine, keep your dumb article as it's apparent I won't wint this, I don't care, but if it gets deleted, I'll be happy. No offense but I can't imagine anyone ever thinking this is something that anyone would ever want to know about. Faris b 22:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• The purpose of an encyclopaedia is not to keep articles about nice, happy, cute things everyone likes. It's a collection of notable facts and ideas. The (probably far far far away) day in the future mankind will discuss the Globus Cassus, just sit among the oppositors and let your voice be heard. I personally find the Globus Cassus one of the most beautiful hypothesis for the future of mankind. --Cyclopia 13:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And I think the idea is putrid, but I wouldn't dream of removing it from an encyclopedia! Pinkville 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I can be construed the unimaginable anyone, for I want to know about. The implausibility and/or impossibility of an idea shall not be taken as a signal of innotability. This way all articles discussing "science" in fictional works (eg. Star Wars, Stargate, ...) shall be deleted for innotability. On the contrary, this fictional creation is more notable than those aforementioned. It is so by the virtue of this being created for other purpose than entertainment of the common people. --TMA 09:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep of course! I don't get why someone would consider deleting this article... Just because it won't be true in the near future, doesn't mean that it's not a living project, even in a philosophical manner. --Vag.stephanou 19:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Pinkville. The concept is capital-D Dumb, but unfortunately we live in a world where Dumb can get a lot of media attention and critical acclaim if it's wrapped in a veneer of elitism (like, for example, the Venice Architecture Biennale). --Aaron 16:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Offtopic: I'd like to know why it is so Dumb. It's visionary and of debatable feasibility, but why plain dumb (or even "putrid")? --Cyclopia 17:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a putrid concept for a number of reasons. 1) It's most likely entirely impossible regardless of reasonably imaginable future technology. 2) It would certainly destroy much life and destroy the world as we know it. 3) Most of the world's current problems are solveable by us with technology we already have. There's no reason for poverty, hunger, most disease deaths, environmental degradation, etc. except that these are the necessary price for maintaining the priveleged lifestyles of a very small percentage of the world's population. Globus Cassus presupposes that we cannot or will not solve these problems without resorting to a mega-project of monumental risk, expense and dubious (at best) viability... but if Globus Cassus were actually necessary, humanity would already have passed the threshhold of survivability. (And if humans had already settled such issues as competitiveness and conflict, then Globus Cassus would be unnecessary). 4) Even if it could be realised, it sets up an inherently risky dichotomy: there are two halves of the world facing each other which, given what we know of ourselves, suggests a future of terrible hemispherical rivalry and conflict. Pinkville 01:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep as per above. I should also point out that Wikipedia has articles on far, far less notable topics, such as Edward Penishands. -Interested2 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per keeps above. I came to the article via link in a post generally more reasonable/forseeable than this idea -- but it's part of a broader conversation. "alyosha" (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This article is in my mind comparable to Dyson spheres and other vast construction ideas. Also, as for the aesthetic objections, who is to say that this will be done on Earth as opposed to some other planet? It's just an idea. --greenmoss 00:18, 20 September 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.