Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice City


 * 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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Alice City

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to have been a vaguely proposed construction project that never even approached implementation and has been dead for many years. Even aside from the WP:CRYSTAL concerns, reliable sources are almost nonexistent; the only real source I could track down was a half-page article in the Apr 29, 1989 issue of New Scientist, which discussed it briefly in the context of a Japanese program to develop technologies for underground construction. After 11 years, I think it's time to put this article to rest. Layzner (Talk) 00:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - I agree with Layzner. There are no reliable references online explaining if there has been any progress about this project. I think because of that it should be deleted. Xaxing (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The article 2nd ext link exists at WayBackMachine. It was helpful to search books using ("Alice City" underground) which found: [New Scientist article], [Underground Infrastructures (book)], [Megacities, Labour, Communications (book)], [Seizing the Future (book)] and many others. The number of books indicates a degree of interest in the subject to be an exception of WP:CRYSTAL imo. Gab4gab (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. If some of those sources could be turned into an article about the project itself - not necessarily the proposal, as this article seems to be - then it might work. Certainly there's some argument for notability in that context. But that's a taller order than your typical AFD cleanup. An article might be warranted - but this doesn't seem to be that article. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm I did my best to address the reasons for deletion listed in the nom. These ideas about an article not about the proposal... I might have stepped into a swamp too deep here. Gab4gab (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems interesting, my guess is that it has historic merit as a proposal for an underground city, and it is good for Wikipedia to "remember" that for the world.  And it seems that there are sources about it.  Notability is not temporary.  I don't get the distinction asserted between an article about the "project" vs. about the "proposal".  It's an article about a proposed project. -- do  ncr  am  22:45, 15 February 2017 (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.