Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Responsibility

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The WP:V and WP:NOT concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this appears to have the necessary backing in sources. Mangojuicetalk 06:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Responsibility[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, this appears to be vanity. Most of this user's edits are somehow related to either Elliott Frankl or Viktor Frankl. -- JamesTeterenko 04:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fopkins | Talk 06:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with Viktor Frankl article NOT PER NOM but as not YET notable enough to warrent its own article, In fact the assertion by User:JamesTeterenko that it should be deleted BECAUSE it relates to Viktor Frankl sounds very anti-semitic to me.--LackOfMotivation 07:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's not what James meant at all. He's saying that the editor who created this article also tends to also edit the article for Elliot Frankl (though I couldn't find any indication the creator edited the other article). Please assume good faith on the part of other editors and be careful about accusations of anti-semitism. Even if you are correct, such an accusation may start an unnecessary fight.--Kchase T 08:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • LackOfMotivation is an obvious sock of the creator of the article. I have blocked him indefinitely as a sock of an indefinitely banned user. -- JamesTeterenko 14:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for you not finding evidence of him editing the Elliott Frankl page, it is because there are two t's in his first name. See here. -- JamesTeterenko 14:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep There's enough news coverage of this statue to do an NPOV article and indicate notability, especially since the picture in this PDF indicates building has started. Merging doesn't make much sense since a building should generally be a separate article from it's creator.--Kchase T 08:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted below, that news is all a year old. The statue in the picture appears to be about 12-15 feet tall. That isn't the 300 foot statue being discussed. -- JamesTeterenko 18:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right. I was expecting those hands to be the top of a statue of a person similar to Lady Liberty. In fact, they are just a scaled mock up of the full statue. I changed the strength of my vote, but I don't have any problem with keeping an article for a planned building if there are reliable sources.--Kchase T 18:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if only because the concept is bizarre. I want a Statue of Tyranny, myself. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article can be written if/when the statue is reality (or at least, close to reality). --Nlu (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kchase. There seems to be historical significance if the idea has been brewing since the 70s, much like The Gates. SliceNYC 16:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, buildings don't have to be built to be notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but saying that the statue is planned to be built is not a prediction, it's a fact. Recury 16:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you verify that fact? With the web site not having been updated in the last year, I am sceptical that there is a realistic plan for it to be erected in 2010. -- JamesTeterenko 18:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am skeptical too, but there are enough verifiable news stories on the plans to pass WP:V. How realistic the plans are is not relevant to whether the article should be kept/deleted. Recury 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Give it some time and AGF. The statue's starting to show some promise, according to the article. If cities are already bidding for it, then it means the plan's underway.--Edtalk c E 16:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I did more research on this statue. The website is very impressive, as is their movie that you can watch. However, they are still calling for "$300 million in donations" on thier website; their website has not been updated in over a year now; and frankly, I couldn't find any credible sources that say that this statue is becoming a reality. The article has two external links, one of which is to the foundation site, and the other is to an interview conducted almost a year ago. The article has no references to any of its claims to being notable. I searched for some, but came up empty. I did not see any information confirming that there are any cities bidding for it, much less four. I did read one of the articles which stated that there were four cities "being considered". This is much different than cities actually bidding/competing for the statue. The latest article, published a year ago, states that a site would be secured in the next 12 months. I don't see any updates. Fopkins | Talk 18:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but change the article's wording to indicate that it might not materialise. There are a number of articles (X-Seed 4000, Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid, etc) on buildings less likely to be constructed. I don't consider it crystal-balling to describe a major project with lots of press coverage. Garrepi 18:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just as the next Olympics (2008? I can't keep track of years) are notable because there is press coverage on the plans, this statue is notable. I agree with Garrepi, however, that the wording should be changed to reflect the possibility that the statue will not be built. Srose (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - seems to be enough verifiable information out there to establish this as a real plan and not a crystal ball prediction. There also seems to be some historic context behind it as well, but would prefer to see more flesh to the article if anyone knowledgable enough on the subject can help it. Arkyan 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Unencyclopedic vanity/promo article for a non-notable project. KleenupKrew 03:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:V - article states four cities are "competing" to be the site of the statue; point of fact, the statute's own website says four sites are being reviewed for the statue, and that after the statue is built on private property, it will be offered to the nearest municipality. WP is also not a newspaper, and this article appears to pander to the fundraising efforts for the statue. And the bottomline remains, the statue isn't built yet, and unlike the Olympics which seems to have a rich and confirmed history of occurring every so often, the statue is still just a vision in my crystal ball. Come back after it's built. Tychocat 08:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Garrepi --69.158.183.223 02:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Statue_of_Responsibility&oldid=1138792509"