Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Da Vinci Tower

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 was keep. John254 02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Da Vinci Tower

Da Vinci Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Proposed building, no assurance this will ever be built. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia has tons of articles on proposed towers. I know other stuff exists isn't a valid argument, but if the statement about each floor rotating individually can be sourced, the article is notable enough to remain. If that source is found, I'll be a keep vote. Wonderful. Definitely a strong keep now. matt91486 (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Im exactly with you on that. Such a feature would provide notability. But until that can be sourced I remain Opinion reserved Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Keep - Im sold on the improvments. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable through unique feature, and 68 stories is particularly high - a few years ago this would have been one of the tallest in the world. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
313m would put it at 29th highest building in the world, although likely to be lesser by time of construction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyharmless (talk • contribs) 05:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Article can be recreated if the project goes further than just being "proposed". Greswik (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep In principle, unbuilt architecture can be just as important to architectural progress as the built stuff - see the Crystal Chain or most of Zaha Hadid's work until the early '90s or even the Mile high tower by FLW. So the argument that it's not built yet doesn't really hold much water - The idea of a tower with individually rotating apartments is what's important - get a source for that, eg. here (top of the google search - something more academic would be preferable) and you have established notablilty - so keep (see also Chicago Spire for an example of how a similar article could be with a little encouragement). --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am convinced by the arguments put forth by Joopercoopers and others., Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I have made major edits to the article. It is now well sourced and contains important and noteworthy information. Also, this article should not be deleted because it will be the world's first prefabricated skyscraper, will rotate, and will be powered by environmentally friendly sources. That sounds notable to me. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Joopercooper's arguments, and Leitmap's sources. According to the article, it is expected to be finished by 2009-- that's next year. SeanMD80talk | contribs 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Now a well-sourced interesting article on what promises to be a most unique structure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Although it is a proposed structure, judging by reports of the tower, it seems very likely that the tower will get built.--OOODDD (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with the nominator's concerns but I also agree with much of the keep rationale, and while I am dwelling here on my concerns, my opinion is that I think this article should be kept. The project has a revolutionary premise quite literally, and the article is written in a very affirmative and certain tone about about it when it hasn't been built—the promise does appear to me to have the crystal ball quality cited by the nominator. What makes this different than the Chicago Spire, Mile High Towers and other examples cited by Joopercoopers is that those are notable by dint of their architects who are in more established, if only by a few years in the case of Calatrava, than the architect of this tower, and have more extensive sources available on them. Another good comparison is Tatlin's Tower which had a helix structure and rotating volumes within. Well on second thought, Leslie E. Robertson the structural engineer of this project has an article here already, and I guess I want to hear more about David Fisher than we already have. With the exception of the Wall Street Journal article, I'm reluctant from not seeing print sources cited in the article, these may be good sources to cite [1] [2] and here is an article by Blair Kamin [3] to help the article were to lean away from the architect's claim directly from their site, which may or may not prove to be true. Having much of the article sourced to the architect's webpage, which is essentially self published, seems not entirely reliable in this case of such a daring proposed feat. I also found a link to a BBC TV News story [4] which portrays it in a somewhat neutral and skeptical tone. While I'm here I want to note that it seems to excessive to me is that we have a page for every proposed Dubai skyscraper, instead of a thorough page on new developments in Dubai, but that this project seems exceptional in many ways. The article as written strongly agrees with the architect that this will work and succeed in its goals, which I guess even if it this ends up to be incorrect and it doesn't work out we can always update it the article then. This already looks like a clear keep, but I thought I would make a few comments anyways. Yours, dvdrw 04:22, 8 January 2008 (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.