Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky City 1000


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP &mdash;Wh o uk (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sky City 1000

 * ''Relevant policies: WP:NOT (crystal ball), WP:RS

Supertall building supposedly proposed (in 1989) to be built in Japan. No reliable sources - this looks like someone's pipe dream with no substantial chance of being constructed. At any rate, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball — write the article once it's under construction. Sandstein 20:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 20:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Come on don't be so strict, the fact that it was shown on the Discovery Channel means it's just not useful information. I mean i watched the documentary's episode and then searched wikipedia about it... AND it says it's not entirely DEAD. Besides, plans of possible solutions are always interesting! This is not a Crystal Ball issue, it's the fruit of many people's work in Japan whether it's going to be built or not. If that's the case, we should also remove http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Millennium_Tower (Norman Foster's Millenium Tower)!!! Zisimos
 * There are no reliable sources for it being shown on the Discovery Channel (the link is dead) and at any rate, a mere mention of this project wouldn't make it notable by itself. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Incidentally, you are welcome to propose London Millennium Tower for deletion. We do not keep unencyclopedic articles just because there are other unencyclopedic articles around. Sandstein 18:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, the link works, the problem was with my browser. But even if the Discovery Channel likes pipe dreams, this doesn't mean Wikipedia does. Sandstein 19:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as crystal-ball navel-gazing. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Discovery Channel links works just fine.  Other proposed superstructure exist, such as The Illinois.Patken4 19:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's a reason to delete those, not to keep this. Stifle (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Illinois was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. It's design and some of Wright's solutions to the problems that would have been encountered have been used in later designs of buildings.Patken4 19:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an interesting article that is varifiable by many sources. it is the work of alot of people and is still under consideration. There are many other projects also being considered in replacement of this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Batchelert (talk • contribs).
 * User's only edit.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! - E@ 00:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I cannot speak to WP:RS, but it seems clear that WP:NOT does not apply here. This article, along with the one on the Illinois or X-Seed 4000, does not exist to predict some future event, but rather to discuss what has happened and is quite verifiable: that is, that plans were created for the construction of a superstructure that, by far, exceeds normal proportions.  It seems natural that that in itself makes this phenomenon a cause for curiosity and justifies keeping the post. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.55.18.56 (talk • contribs).
 * User's only edit. Tyrenius 01:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - I see no valid reason for deleting this article. Something being a proposal is not sufficient grounds for deletion, so long as it meets notablity requirements.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! - E@ 00:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - First of all, this project is still under consideration, thus, it exists in the planning phase, just as structures exist in the building and the completed phases. Second of all, this is already part of history, be it built or not.  Even if this structure is not built, it's concept is still part of history, thus documentable.  The joyous one 08:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. --Azazell0 21:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it exists - as a verifiable idea which is being taken seriously. Tyrenius 01:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep very interesting. I ended up reading through several articles on different supertall structures. JohnM4402 06:38, 25 May 2006 (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.