Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helicoidal Skyscraper


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Helicoidal Skyscraper

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Architectural project which was never realised which appears to fail WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 12:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How did you come to that conclusion? The Google Books search alone shows substantive discussion of this topic in multiple sources (e.g., ,,,).  There are some additional Google Books results from which it is difficult to tell, in the snippets that are visible, the amount of coverage in those particular sources, but those still quite clearly show cites to journal articles that are clearly about the Helicoidal Skyscraper (e.g., ,).  So please explain your evaluation of the sources you reviewed, and your decision to take this to AFD.  postdlf (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of the sorces you indicate are however not independent of the subject. --Elekhh (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is my issue. I myself am not entirely sure that it is non-notable, but all the full length articles on the subject seems to have been written by those involved in designing it, and the other coverage seems to be mentions in passing. It's very hard to tell just from snippets, and I'd prefer someone to either find a web source which provides independent significant coverage or get their hands on a paper source. However, I understand why there may be a case to keep this. Of course, planned buildings can be as notable as completed structures. Claritas § 14:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean; many of the references are closely related to the architect's own discussions, but the referenced notice by Pevsner, the pre-eminent architectural historian of the 20th century, should help, and there are in fact a number of (short) independent references uncovered by Google. I suspect there are more in dead-tree sources, given the time of the project proposal, but they will require a specialized library. I may have something myself, but most of my library's in boxes while renovations take place.  Acroterion  (talk)  15:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep in that it seems to have significant coverage in reliable sources. It's about a particular architectural concept for a building, and not just a particular edifice that was planned but not built.  Mandsford 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep "never realised" isn't a criteria for deletion, and there's plenty of reliable sourcing. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Pevsner is a reliable and independent source. Some of the other independent sources indicated by postdlf would be worth including in the article. --Elekhh (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand using sources cited here. A major, influential project by a notable architect. There are many influential-but-unbuilt buildings, like Wright's The Illinois (inspiration for the Burj Khalifa) or the unbuildable, purely conceptual Walking City by Archigram. Pevsner is an ironclad, independent source and clear indication of notability, supported by considerable coverage as indicated by Postdlf, much of it independent of the subject.  Acroterion  (talk)  00:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with postdlf. This ref. is self-explanatory. AWHS (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2010 (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.