Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volante 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. The sources offered don't seem to be reliable, and consensus is that it's not notable Fences&Windows 22:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volante Tower[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This proposed building in Dubai is, according to the unreliable Emporis, a low-rise, with no height given even by its own webpage. It has no reliable secondary sources whatsoever, and I can say with some certainty that it will never be built. Deprodded by the author. Glittering Pillars (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable secondary sources that discuss this tower at length. Non-notable. Angryapathy (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What makes you say Emporis is unreliable? Do you have any evidence to support your statement "...and I can say with some certainty that it will never be built"? If you are going to use a lack of sources as a reason to delete, then don't use your own unverifiable opinion to support your argument. The lack of a stated height or that it is merely a proposal is not in itself a reason to delete. Astronaut (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incdentally, AfD is an unusual place for new editors, like Glittering Pillars (talk · contribs), to start. Astronaut (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, I've followed GlitteringPillars onto more than one AfD and not found anything to complain of - so far. Peridon (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emporis allows registered editors to add information. All it takes to become a registered editor is an email address, and perhaps to upload some photos. It is a wiki. Glittering Pillars (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the somewhat parlous state of Dubai's finances at this time, WP:CRYSTAL does come into my thoughts. I know nothing about Emporis, but wonder why it is referred to thus "Emporis GmbH is a real estate data mining company" at Emporis. Peridon (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence in reliable sources that it will not be built after all? And to quote from Emporis: "Emporis is cited relatively frequently by various media sources as an authority on building data" Does that make it unreliable? Astronaut (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think taking a quote from a company that promotes the company is exactly reliable information. Any website can make claims about its impact on various industries. Angryapathy (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source of that information is Emporis, but it is not that difficult to follow up the quoted articles. Do you have a particular reason to believe Emporis have made it up? Astronaut (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying Emporis is an unreliable source, I am instead questioning whether it is reliable source that can confer notability. I feel that being included on that site does not confer notability to a building that will probably never be built. Angryapathy (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emporis is a useful resource, but it allows developers to add information about their buildings. So it is okay for uncontroversial information, but not for challenged claims, especially about buildings that haven't been built. Glittering Pillars (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When they get planning permission AND cut the first sod - or rather shovel the first shovelful of sand - then maybe. Until then, CRYSTAL. The media quote lots of sources that aren't reliable. Governments, the military, etc. Peridon (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, without prejudice to recreation once construction has begun. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to Glittering for pointing out that Emporis is editable, and therefore not reliable (in the same way that Wikipedia may not be used here as a source). Can I add that Freebase is also editable, and the Skyscrapercity link is a forum? Which leaves us with only the 'official site' which may be interesting but is primary, and therefore inherently not classed as reliable. At the present state of play, I'm wondering if SNOW will fall on the tower..... Peridon (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2009 (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.