Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sol, Puerto Rico


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Sol, Puerto Rico

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Crystal balling. Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So is Crystal Island and a lot of articles under Category:Proposed buildings and structures (anything under the other "propossed" categories as well). There are plenty of newspaper references, including the New York Times, as well as mainstream news references to justify notability. El Alternativo (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but other stuff is not a justification for keeping this (and note that building of the Crystal Island has been postponed, it is why we do not have articles about what might be's. And this had a lot more going for it then a vague proposal.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, this is a community, not a building. So it is not analogous anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a conference scheduled for March, where relevant (enabling) legislation is expected to be announced. This is moving along faster than Crystal Island or that generous list of "Propossed space stations" at Category:Deep Space Habitat (those are definitely "might be's and they are communities, or at least communal structures). I'm not really trying to trash talk here, only noting that there is quite a precedent for this kind of article at Wikipedia. El Alternativo (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Make that a government-sponsored conference, for clarification.El Alternativo (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And if tommorow the price of crypoto currencies falls it collapses as a concept. Aslo (and again) you do understand the difference between a well funded government agency (say) or a conceptual design (I.E not a proposal for building but an intellectual exercise) and an ill defined group of people who do not even have a set of rules in place yet?
 * What government-sponsored conference, which government?Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If tomorrow Trump sells NASA, all of those Deep Space Habitat projects are going to be shoved way down the list of priorities... But that doesn't concern us, since it would be actual crystal balling.El Alternativo (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Your argument is that the USA might sell of NASA?Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My argument is that none of the projects discussed in those long-lasting articles are any closer to fruition than this and that speculating if cryptocurrency is a bubble is not of concern to this article. Now, the conference is named "Puerto Cryto", sponsored by the Puerto Rico Department of Economic Development and Commerce and to be keynoted (sic?) by the governor himself. So... The local government? You know, the one that actually has control over the abandoned base. I was going to write about it, but the article got listed here before it was even complete. El Alternativo (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, mind that -as long as they are notable enough- failed, impractical and even downright stupid concepts are covered in Wikipedia. See the Ford Nucleon for example. El Alternativo (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference is that they are projects by major government agencies that are long term feasibility studies, not concrete plans. Also Puerto Rico is not a major government that has the funds to even begin to support anything (and I would point out it is a conference about crypto currencies in the territory, it is not just about this one community). In fact nowhere can I find reference in its about page to this community (or in its list of events and talks). It fact it mainly seems to be about legislation of Crypto currencies.
 * You also do understand the difference between a failed (but historical interesting) subject (that failed before Wikipedia was invented), and one that might not even exist by the time of that much vaunted conference?Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The distinction between "major" governments or their budgets here is an arbitrary tangent, the local government has the rights of disposition for the terrains. The conference is going to feature not only the governor, but these guys and a local cryptocurrency initiative as well. Not everything is so easy to find on Google... "Sol" is the official name, but "Puertopia" seems more popular. Try it in the 'news' section of Google and will get news about this "community" (actually a techno-city, not unlike Sillicon Valley when you think about it, no mention of it even being open for the residential use of outsiders have been made AFAIK) coming back in several languages. El Alternativo (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also... No, you argued about this becoming a failed initiative and how that would affect the article by trapping it in a sort of limbo, so I quoted one that actually is. What's "interesting" is entirely subjective. But, I also gave you the example of Crystal Island... Which is actually an arcology (basically a vertical city designed to be lived by thousands of people), not a simple "building". El Alternativo (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes they do, but that still does not mean this will get the funding to go ahead. That is the difference, NASA (for example) has billion it can waste (if it so chooses, on studies of Zombie outbreaks or Viking attack), this project will only go ahead with private investment that may not be forthcoming (as with the Crystal Island). Maybe after the conference (and we have some idea about what is actually being proposed (a "community" a "non residential "City"" a "name you can just stick on a passport to avoid taxes") it might be time to reexamine this, but at this time we do not even know what is being proposed beyond "some kind of Crypto paradise" (hell we do not even have one name for it). I will drop out now and let others either justify this article or condemn it. We are just going round in circles.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We are indeed, since your arguments are speculation (ironic, considering that "crystal balling" was the justification for this AFD) about financial viability, ethnocentric tangents about "major governments", the possibility that cryptocurrency is a bubble and that it's basically a rich kid's dream to create a Tax Haven... And none of them are actually arguments for why, exactly, this article (not the actual project), should not exist when its already sourced by a major newspaper, a television network and has several additional mainstream references pending... Then by all means withdraw. I only have several examples of precedent where similar -or even failed- ideas have aged articles in my favor... Nevermind the List of planned cities. - El Alternativo (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete seems analogous to a proposed real estate project without financing. If I've identified this as geographical properly, it clearly fails WP:GEOFEAT. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: According to the New York Times piece, the same group that proposes it is the one financing it "they’re going to buy 250,000 acres so they can incorporate their own city, literally start a city in Puerto Rico to have their own crypto world" and "We’re moving to Puerto Rico for the taxes and to create this new town". In any case, financing is not mentioned at WP:GEOFEAT. El Alternativo (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment it doesn't qualify for either WP:GEOFEAT or WP:GEOLAND so it must satisfy WP:GNG; I don't believe the sources shown (most of which are about cryptocurrency and not a place) come close to satisfying notability. SportingFlyer (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete not enough coverage to justify this very uninformative article on a thing that does not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not yet complete, I was never even allowed to complete it before it got listed at AFD. There are articles that exist on notability simply because they have one reference to a mainstream outlet, this one has several. El Alternativo (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2018 (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.