Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston 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   no consensus. Cirt (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Houston Tower

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The only cited sources in the article are very brief online listings (it used to be longer but unsourced material was removed; it also originally contained --that link is admins only, sorry). I've done as detailed a search as I could and not found anything more except web rumors. The records of Emery Roth's firm, which is listed at Emporis as the architect, are at Columbia; this xls file contains a list of all projects in the file, and this one is not represented. No news coverage that I can find. I'm not convinced this ever got beyond the daydreaming stage, there isn't even any indication of who might have been doing the daydreaming, and I'm not sure we can include it without WP:reliable sources attesting that it was seriously proposed at any point. Chick Bowen 00:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. For support, the article cites a forum discussion at skyscraperpage.com, but that would be a little dubious even if it actually helped. But it doesn't! The discussion there makes clear that this was a hypothetical concept to illustrate the limits of supertall structures - not even a proposed building. (See the comment of "Wattleigh" showing a newspaper article.) It never, ahem, got off the ground. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Change to undecided/provisional keep in light of Template:Supertall proposed skyscrapers; I was not aware that there are actually quite a number of articles on similarly-situated skyscraper designs. I think we should seek better guidance than I'm presently aware of as to what the notability criteria are for proposed and actual structures, and how our decision here is going to bear on the retention or deletion of those other articles before coming down one way or another. If we can't resolve those questions in the timeframe allowed for the nomination's consideration, I would strongly advocate keeping the article until those questions are answered, without prejudice to the possibility of subsequently renominating the article if the answers are unfavorable. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of notability. Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that new, more reliable sources have been found that appear to discuss this topic in a narrow way. None of the new sources appears to use this term to describe the concept, however.  It doesn't change the fact that this was a concept only, designed 20-odd years ago, and that the designers never even tried to get proposed as a potential building.  At most, I could see this being mentioned in one of the tallest building articles, but I don't think it should have its own article. Karanacs (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Can you please specify which Policy stats that it shouldn't be listed or state which article is should be merged too. I know there's many other articles on Hypothetical Supertall Vision Buildings that are not stubby and are sourced and which is why I placed my decision as keep. You can see the list of those buildings at Template:Supertall_skyscrapers. So please tell me which policy or guideline is the rationale of deletion as I felt I met the Nominators rationale for deletion. As of right now you seem to be using WP:IDONTLIKEIT and/or WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC (as you are just thinking that those types of buildings shouldn't have their own articles is kinda hinting that it is just Unencyclopedic and you Don't like it) as the rationile.  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 20:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Changing Decision to Strongest Possible Keep see below I only just placed a Stub Tag on it just last week. It needs more time for people to notice its here as it was uncategorized the week before. In a few months if you felt that it is needed then I will change my mind on it. I might have to do some googling for some, but I can't expand an article that is up for AFD, because the work would probably get deleted and all those hours of expansion would be for nothing.  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 18:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The sources for this building are out there. Unfortunately its not on the Web. On the fourm site at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=153431 (the forum site itself is not a good resource but they do cite reliable resources in them to cite here) it shows a scan of a Houston Post Story on the Building from the 1980s, to make matters worse on finding the article, the Newspaper was Discontinued in 1995 (in the earlier time when the internet was not as big as it was today and it only had very very few archives) and sold to the Houston Chronicle which doesn't appear to keep on online archive of their stories. I'll continue my search for sources.  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 18:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Found another Source After seeing on one of the fourms to Google the Term Krahl Houston Tower I cam up on a link that goes to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=47252 Which cites the building details and cites the source from The Futurist Magazine November-December 1986. I will add this site to the article at hand.  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 19:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Another Comment I am changing my decision listed above from Weak Keep to Strongest Possible Keep per the Google Results at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS278US278&q=Krahl+Houston+Tower&btnG=Search and some of the links I added to the article.
 * Thanks very much for your efforts here. This is very valuable material, but don't you think it would best be collected in an article on proposals for one mile + buildings, rather than the individual building?  That NY Times article is great, but it's not really about this building per se as a proposal. Chick Bowen 03:53, 4 February 2009 (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.