Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed tall buildings and structures


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 05:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed tall buildings and structures

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep CRYSTAL forbids unverifiable nonsense about future events. Article is only on notable historical and extant plans for buildings, and some well referenced credible scientific research from refereed publications. As CRYSTAL states: Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions.. In my opinion this is a clear cut encyclopedic article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note the article was simply split off of List of tallest buildings and structures in the world due to space reasons.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not only is this a valid split off, I believe WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. I'll cite from the policy page. "ikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." The article lists verifiable speculations rather than unverifiable ones and the buildings listed (seeing as they're listed as tallest buildings and structures) would be of interest as an article topic if they were built. The rest of the guideline also doesn't give me any indication how these structures would fit the criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 20:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a very useful article that is on a notable topic. Many of the planned proposed structures are verifiable. The Space Elevator, for example, has been exhaustively discussed in journal article and science fiction for decades. The fact that no one has built one is not a reason to regard this as crystal-ballery. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- the only crystals I detect are the ones of water ice precipitating from the sky. The broad topic of the list is one that merits coverage in en encyclopedia, and the various entries are mostly well referenced. It is somewhat speculative, yes, but this is not an unjustified flight of fancy about what the future may hold, it is speculation covered in reliable sources.  Reyk  YO!  22:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep — it's not crystalballery if it is verifiable. MuZemike  ( talk ) 00:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Frequently users attempt to use WP:CRYSTAL to delete articles on anything proposed or planned. Of course WP:CRYSTAL only forbids unverifiable topics, not simply because they're proposed or planned. --Oakshade (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep No crystal in this gem on an article. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2008 (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.