Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meydan 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   delete. Not the greatest nom ever, but the WP:CRYSTAL aspect as mentioned by Delete voters seems to be the main issue here. Black Kite 00:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Meydan Tower

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This skyscraper in Dubai is probably not going to be built, and, to top it off, has no sources that meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. I prod tagged this but the article's author removed the tag. Glittering Pillars (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Plz see the talk page i have added more sources then i had removed the tagg.here they are

Skyscrapercity.com Accessmylibrary.com Architecture.com Meed.com Estatesdubai.com Meydan.ae

i think that they are quit sufficient.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I am not seeing enough non-trivial coverage from reliable sources to warrant this article at this time. As it is still in the proposal stage, this article might warrant re-creation in the future when more sources discuss the tower.  As this Tower stands (or, doesn't stand), it is non-notable and should be deleted. Angryapathy (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep While there are not many sources, I easily found some reliable sources: Meed.com is a well respected Middle East business magazine, and worldarchitecturenews.com seems to be reliable too.  The fact it is only approved and may never be built should not be a measure of its worthiness for inclusion - Wikipedia has plenty of articles about proposed and vision buildings and even buildings that were never built - eg: The Illinois, Volkshalle.  (I know this sounds like the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but I believe it is relevant in this discussion.  The nominator starts their notability argument by saying the building is "...probably not going to be built..." which should not be a reason for deletion).  Astronaut (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment  I am surprised to see that the nominator's very first act as a Wikipedia editor, was to propose this building for deletion, swiftly followed by creating this AfD. In fact, a large number of  43 contributions to date have been to propose 6 articles for deletion or !vote delete on 5 other AfD discussions - very odd behavoir for a supposedly novice editor.  Astronaut (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does that matter? My first edit to AfD (then called Votes for deletion) was 10 minutes after my first edit as a registered user ... because I was familiar with AfD from having read it while I was still unregistered. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Tis true. Let's look at the facts; two years ago, Dubai was booming, and articles on all the wonderful buildings going up were entirely appropriate. Once those articles were written, it was not a stretch to go through Emporis and create articles on future buildings too--who would ever think they weren't going to get built? Now that the bubble has burst, it is inappropriate to have articles on proposed buildings without any reliable sources, since we can be very sure that they will never get built. Even so, if a building's not getting built generated news, I have not nominated it for deletion; I am sticking to proposed buildings (or real buildings) that have no sources other than Emporis and blogs like skyscrapercity (and even those sources typically say if the project is "on hold"). I expected some resistance at AfD, and I am confident that all these article will eventually get deleted. Glittering Pillars (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as we can't use WP:CRYSTAL to say this building won't exist, in fairness we can't use it on an economy, either. It might allow some extra weight for proposals awaiting funding especially if any news stories mention it, but nothing more. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment to Astronaut First of all, taking issue with an editor's motivations for nominating an article for deletion is not assuming good faith. Secondly, comparing a proposed skyscraper in Dubai that probably won't get built to The Illinois and the Volkshalle is a poor comparison, as both of those have historical significance. The Illinois was proposed by one of the most recognized architects in America in the 20th century, and is notable for being one mile tall. The Volkshalle was part of Adolf Hitler's plan for Germany, who is one of the most infamous and nefarious leaders in world history. These have significances way beyond the Meydan Tower. Just because they were never built does not mean they have anything else in common with a proposed (and based on the economic climate in Dubai, never to be built) skyscraper in Dubai. Angryapathy (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Again with the "...probably won't get built..." and "...never to be built..." as a justification for deletion. What makes you so certain?  The economic problems in Dubai are probably a temporary hiccup and major building projects have a long lead time.  I believe the chances of already "approved", "under construction" and some "on-hold" projects being abandoned altogether is slim, though some changes may be made to those that have not yet broken ground.
 * As for Glittering Pillars' unfounded suggestion that someone has gone through Wikipedia's articles on proposed skyscrapers, then entered their details into Emporis and thereby lent weight to Wikipedia's articles; that is some conspiracy theory. Perhaps Glittering Pillars' would like to provide some proof of this monstorous plot. Astronaut (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a monstrous plot; Emporis and the blogs/forums are the only source of information on these proposed buildings, that and press releases from the developers. I just joined Emporis; I can add information to it. Emporis is a wiki. Glittering Pillars (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, you are overlooking the main point; any topic, even a building that is not built yet, can be notable. For example, Dynamic Tower, with its floors that individually rotate, has not been built, may never be built, and still it is notable. Notability is non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. Meydan Tower doesn't have those. Glittering Pillars (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, with it only landing in the "Proposal" section of what is already a template filled with non-notable articles . If it were "approved"? Maybe, but still needing notability and sources. Wikipedia is not a collection of dreams of large buildings that may or may not ever be built. Entirely support deletion per WP:CRYSTAL. Doesn't matter if it might or might not be built, point being it hasn't yet, or even started, and claims no special features. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck statement of non-notability of others, seeing consensus of 100m+ being notable. Does not change opinion. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Why is this building notable again? Seems to be crystalballing to me. ArcAngel (talk) 07:15, 7 December 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.