Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tokyo Tower of Babel (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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Tokyo Tower of Babel
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This proposed fantasy building lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. A bibliography in the article lists two books. The first book is by the academic who proposed this building so it is not independent. The second book provides no specific page number but is a link to a search within Google Books which doesn't show any Tokyo Tower of Babel so I have no idea why this book is listed. Whpq (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is small difference between this article and articles like X-Seed 4000 and Ultimate Tower which are also fantasy buildings without independent reliable sources. There is nothing wrong with the article and it has better quallity than the most of Wikipedia articles. And secondly, this is the tallest buildings EVER envisioned in human history, so the articles is definitely notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldonium (talk • contribs) 19:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia something that is not notable doesn't exist. Every knowledge is important, and your attitude to the new articles is in conflict with the fundamental vision of all Wikimedia Projects:


 *  "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldonium (talk • contribs) 19:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - This was actually already deleted through AfD back in 2015 (an admin might want to add the earlier discussion to this - you can find a link to it on the article's talk page). Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. The WP:OSE argument in this case is quite weak.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The previous AFD is automatically linked in in the AFD box (upper right on my browser). -- Whpq (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the lack of independent reliable sources doesn't means that the article should be deleted--Sheldonium (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Our inclusion guidelines says otherwise. -- Whpq (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lack of sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG. --  Dane talk  02:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You probably didn't read the article nor WP:GNG, especially see the sources on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.161.40 (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2017 (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.