Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston Tower (2nd nomination)


 * 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. I am afraid roughly half of the users think the coverage is sufficient to merit a standing alone article, and another half think it is insufficient. This is no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Houston Tower
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is my first AFD attempt, so I hope I follow the correct protocols. I nominate this article for deletion as the building is imaginary and it reads like an advertisement. It was never built, or even approved to be built. The article starts with "The Houston Tower was a visionary skyscraper to be built in Houston" which is not encyclopedic at all. It has 2 more sentences. Mattximus (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This page was created without the afd2 template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself at this time.  Followed up with the nominator on his talk page.  -- Finngall   talk  20:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - maybe if they ever build it it may be notable Gbawden (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTBUILT. North America1000 04:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Leaning Keep Leaning delete – There's five paragraphs about the concept in this The New York Times article (see the "Structural Limits" section), and it has an Emporis entry, but not finding much additional coverage at this time. North America1000 13:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Modified my !vote above to "leaning keep", per additional sources added to the article. North America1000 04:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: OK, I am digging into this to see what can be done with it. The existing article was not in great shape and really misportrays the story.  Also, I am not sure it was ever called the "Houston Tower."  Even if we find it not individually notable, the concept may merit coverage somewhere like Skyscraper design and construction, because it appears the project was meant to illustrate whether there are limits to the possible heights of skyscraper design.--Milowent • hasspoken  23:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , any update? czar  15:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think doncram makes some good points. I would suggest a move to Proposed 500-story Houston skyscraper at this point.  Its amazing they didn't seem to give a name for the amount of coverage it received in the 1980s.--Milowent • hasspoken  02:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest "Mile-high skyscraper designs]] below. Frank Lloyd Wright proposed his for Chicago, to be named "The Illinois". -- do  ncr  am  04:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, although probably rename. I remember it as an important "futurist"-type contribution that changed what people thought was possible, that truly huge increases in building height were possible.  The world was nowhere near any limit.  It would be like proving, or establishing the general understanding, that computers more powerful than anything in the world as of 1950 or so, would eventually fit into a wristwatch...which I don't think was established until much much later.  One source to use is the scanned Houston newspaper article included in this forum.skyscraperpage.com discussion, which was pointed out in the first AFD and which still works.  It would be good to find learned discussion about the impact of the contribution, but even if we don't find that, it really did happen and was important.  I also do not recall it being termed "Houston Tower".  Probably it should be moved/renamed to some descriptive title like "So-and-so's 500 story skyscraper proposal of 19xx", which would not be controversial, and any suggestion it was ever referred to as Houston Tower could be included there if/when sources support that. -- do  ncr  am  01:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The name doesn't have to be settled in this AFD, but how about Mile-high skyscraper designs? Both the New York Times and the Houston Post articles describe the 1984 Sobel and Krahl plan in those terms. The Houston Post article states it was suggested by Frank Lloyd Wright in 1956.  And indeed, here is a poster of a "mile high drawing" from a Frank Lloyd Wright exhibition.  And linked from  here is flyer and photos and text about the idea including:"Frank Lloyd Wright in his drafting room at Taliesin Spring Green, finishing the drawing of the Mile high Building. Three drawings were prepared for the news conference held on October 16, 1956, in conjunction with "Sixty Years of Living Architecture," exhibited in Chicago from October 16, 17 and 18, 1956 at the Hotel Sherman. On October 16, Wright held a Press conference at the Hotel Sherman to open the exhibition and unveil the Mile High Building "The Illinois" for the first time. Wright proposed the building for Chicago"


 * By the way, the New York Times article includes quote from Sobel about how the elevators would need to be able to jump hoistways, and goes on with info from another source about elevators. That is part of the futurist vision.  It's like science fiction, which prepares us for what's coming. -- do  ncr  am  04:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep perhaps, because although it was never actually started, it may be enough to keep at least for informative uses. SwisterTwister   talk  22:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So whenever I prepare myself to close this as "keep", I look back at the sourcing and don't see the rationale. I see a NYT article and a bunch of local coverage—why is this independently notable? czar  07:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Popular Mechanics is not local. I added that cite.  We don't have the 1986 Futurist Magazine article (I don't think) but it is claimed toe exist as well.  You could close keep or no consensus at this point.--Milowent • hasspoken  12:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So both the Popular Mechanics and the NYT articles are really about the "history of the skyscraper" idea and only mention this Houston project briefly. It would seem to me that the solution is to be proportional—we cover the tower proportional to its coverage in the reliable sources, which is to say we mention it in the context of the history of skyscrapers. This said, I see nothing to merge outright but would recommend either to redirect to Skyscraper (or a history of the skyscraper section that can mention the tower) or outright deletion, as there isn't a sign that this tower project was independently notable from that history. I have the Futurist magazine (ISSN 0016-3317) at a local library so I'll take a peek early next week, but we don't presume that a magazine covers the topic in depth just because it's in the references section. If it's anything like these other sources, the Houston tower will only be a brief portion of the article. Pinging prior discussants for reconsideration  czar  14:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that the sourcing is quite weak for it to be independently notable. I wonder how many "visionary towers" were proposed in the past hundred years. Should they all get a page? I do hold a strong stance against pages on "potential" skyscrapers preferring wikipedia report on real ones only (architect's notebooks are filled with potential skyscrapers). I also will not argue against the discussion above, as I see many of the points as being valid as well. I do maintain a delete view. Mattximus (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To allow for continuation of discussion started by Czar. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 09:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 09:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked up The Futurist—it's a four-page article that only gives the tower a passing mention. I've uploaded it here if you want to take a look. The source is more about skyscrapers, which means, along with the others mentioned above, we're much better off mentioning the Houston Tower in the history of skyscrapers than in its own article. czar  19:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. To illustrate at what stage this was, the cited NYT says "It's what happens when two people sit around and don't have enough to do." The tower was according to the article was "never intended to be built". This is an article about a conceptual research project, not about a building project. If this research were regularly cited and applied the interest may be enduring enough to make it notable, but here the coverage consists of some old news articles, and even there the coverage is limited. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, modifying my thoughts above, and since no one else responded to my source analysis, there is currently nothing to merge and no mention of the towers as a worthy redirect target. Redirection was a compromise before, but might as well outright delete. czar  15:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - The tower concept, by itself, was only somewhat notable, and even that is due to its influence on the mechanics of skyscraper design. I feel like all of this information would make a lot more sense if displayed in a paragraph or such in some other article. Skyscraper design and construction, probably? As it stands, I would just delete this. I also have to say that, if this is retained, the title badly needs to change since it falsely implies that the tower was intended to be actually built. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

<li>Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.<ol> <li> This article was mentioned above by Doncram. The article notes: "Robert Sobel, Houston architect, and Nat Krahl, Houston engineer, did a theoretical study of a 500-story building in 1974 and concluded that such a mile-high structure is now a technical possibility which could become a reality by the year 2000. They now say the original conclusion has been reinforced by a new study in more detail. Sobel and Krahl stress that they neither advocate the project nor guarantee the economic and social feasibility of a 500-story building which would be the equivalent of the mile-high skyscraper originally suggested in 1956 by the late Frank Lloyd Wright."</li> <li> The article from the Google snippet view notes: "Richard Payne Sobel and Krahl's mile-high superscraper Nat Krahl in studying the feasibility of a 500-story building that would fulfill Frank Lloyd Wright's famous tongue-in-cheek drawing of a 'mile-high' building in 1956. Sobel and Krahl believe the skyscraper is possible, given the money, the time and an enormous support space—but they don't advocate such a project. Sobel says that this vision disturbs him. 'The depth of the building would be astonishing,' he points out—and the human costs would be incalculable, both for those required to travel up and down mile-high elevator shafts each day and those on the ground who would rarely be able to glimpse the building's top."</li> <li> The article notes: "'It's what happens when two people sit around and don't have enough to do,' said Robert Sobel, referring to a 500-story building he and a colleague planned for a 16-block site in downtown Houston. Mr. Sobel is the principal in charge of design at Emery Roth & Sons, the New York-based architectural firm that helped Minoru Yamasaki & Associates design the World Trade Center. Mr. Sobel's codesigner was Nat W. Krahl, an engineer who was once chairman of the Department of Civil Engineering at Rice University. Their mile-high building was done as a research project to probe the limits of modern building materials and design. 'I am not proposing it or advocating it,' Mr. Sobel said. 'I have a feeling that I would be right up there with the critics of supertall buildings, but I don't oppose them as a matter of principle.' Structurally, the two researchers found that the sky was the limit. 'We did 500 stories, but there is no reason why we couldn't go 1,000 or more stories - the materials are strong enough,' Mr. Sobel said. The triangular building, 800 feet on a side, is actually a bundle of 16 equilateral triangles framed in steel. As the building rises, the perimeter triangles terminate at varying heights and only one section reaches the full height. The biggest technological and design problem turns out to be elevators, which take up a lot of space. Each tower in the World Trade Center, for instance, has 99 express and local elevators. To make supertall buildings more space-efficient and to improve transportation, Mr. Sobel said, elevators would have to be 'self-propelled and be able to jump back and forth between hoistways.'"</li> <li> The book notes: "Robert Sobel of the New York architectural firm of Emery Roth and Sons, working with the Rice University engineer Nat Krahl, had tested a bundled tube design for Houston, in which a cluster of attached shafts can 'bundle' their strength and rigidity to rise as high as a theoretical 500 stories."</li> <li> The book notes: "In the late 1970s, architect Robert Sobel of Emery Roth & Sons, and engineer Nat W. Krahl designed a 500-story concept tower. This theoretical project proposed for Houston was made from sixteen 200-foot sided triangular bundled tubes, arranged in an 800-foot equilateral triangle. The perimeter tubes drop off at different heights while some of the tubes in the proposal could be interrupted within the building in order to decrease the built volume when reaching the sky and also as an opportunity to create atriums within the tower. A single tube would have reached the full height of the 500-story, mile-high project. Such a project with its adjoining plaza would have covered 16 typical city blocks, which are actually rather small in Houston at 250 by 250 feet."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * I am fine with a rename to Proposed 500-story Houston skyscraper. Cunard (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the 1980s Houston Post article, the 500-story building proposal was studied in 1974. That the proposal was discussed in Newsweek in 1982, The New York Times in 1984, The Tall Building Artistically Reconsidered in 1986, and 101 of the World's Tallest Buildings in 2006 demonstrates it has persistent coverage and is notable. Cunard (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, with no more detail than that they had an idea. Most notably covered within the history of skyscrapers, according to the context of these passages. The Newsweek "title" is misleading—it's a subheading within another article. The local paper seems to have the most to say about it... czar  05:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The five-paragraph coverage in nonlocal source The New York Times article has the most to say about it. The local Houston Post comes at a close second. I chose the Newsweek subheading to be the citation template's title because I do not know what the article's title is. Cunard (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Five-paragraph" makes it sound a lot more grand than its reality (these are newspaper "paragraphs"). There are plenty of other buildings evoked in that article, but its topic is skyscraper concepts, not the Houston Tower—the Houston Post article is much longer. This said, my point is that there's little depth or sustained coverage, that the idea is considered by history alongside other skyscraper concepts rather than an independently notable concept. czar  05:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is fine for the subject to be covered in articles about skyscraper topics. Notability says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The guideline further says, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." I think The New York Times article, the Houston Post article, and the 101 of the World's Tallest Buildings book "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail". Cunard (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Except the Houston Post is local, not national, coverage. I hear you, but this is also about drawing the line. Coverage is presumed notability, and I was only addressing my counter-case to explain why I maintain that these sources are insufficient for notability, though you could certainly put a paragraph about it somewhere. czar  06:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think significant coverage in a national source (The New York Times) and a book (101 of the World's Tallest Buildings) makes this not merely local coverage about the subject. Cunard (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2016 (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.