Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Dome

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 without prejudice to recreation if it happens. - Philippe 20:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Dome

Unsubstantiated future project. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. May even be a hoax. See dreams – A Future Dome we have never heard from Nv8200p talk 02:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:V. The source appears to be a Dutch chat site here. If a reliable source can be produced then I should be happy to change my !vote but without such a source we should delete. BlueValour (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's interesting, but that's not an acceptable AfD argument. Problems with WP:RS; WP:CRYSTAL. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fascinating look through WP:CRYSTAL ball but this article is all "future" and "unrealized" and "estimated" without reliable sourcing. - Dravecky (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from a bit of Googling, I see we have numerous skyscraper enthusiast sites agreeing on the basic info about the project, a bunch of concept drawings/renderings... and a complete lack of real confirmation that the project exists.
While I wouldn't put too much weight on the linked blog saying that Shanghai locals haven't heard about the project (the Chinese Shenzou program, for instance, was publicized everywhere BUT mainland China. They only got the information after the mission was a confirmed success.), we can't have an article that pulls its data out of thin air. Has anyone attempted translating the forum posts that the images were taken from to see if those have useful information? [1] --erachima formerly tjstrf 08:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google searches have led me to trustable web sites that prove such thing could exist in the near future. Until the building is completed. we can put a "future/upcoming" template on the article. Lily1104 (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until its built it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2008 (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.