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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seascraper

Seascraper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. While the concept of a "seascraper" is an interesting topic, I believe that this article fails WP:CRYSTAL as there are just not enough reliable sources to verify the content and/or expand on a basic definition of what the word means (most likely due to the fact that no such "seascraper" has been built or even begun real planning stages). Nick—Contact/Contribs 04:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have another reason to want to delete it? Do you believe anyone reading the article might be confused by what it is? Do people call other things Seascrapers? If so, you could have a note at the top of the article linking to those articles instead. I've never heard anyone use that term before though, so doubt its necessary. Dream Focus 23:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should probably be changed (and have one of the refs attached to it). SilverserenC 00:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources show various floating buildings, not underwater buildings that the article describes. I also hate the word "seascraper" but that's not a reason to delete. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then, as I stated above, the lead should be rewritten to say floating buildings instead of underwater buildings. This is an edit you can even do yourself if you dislike what it is currently. SilverserenC 03:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough sources that this seems to pass notability and verifiability. More importantly, it's a pretty coherent topic with good scope. It needs to be edited to be clear that it is mostly a science fiction idea. Quantumelfmage (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does say conceptual. SilverserenC 08:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NEO. Although the earlier comments claim that the article is sufficiently sourced to meet WP:N, it is simply not true.
  1. [1]'s "coverage" of the subject is limited to the following user comment: "should call it a "seascraper" instead of a "waterscraper", sounds cooler".
  2. [2] has no mention of the neologism.
  3. [3] discusses the Gyre Seascraper—the proper name of a conceptual building, not a common noun.
  4. [4] is a "geek blog dedicated to the scientific study of gadgets, gizmos, and awesome"[5]. Not a reliable source.
GNews, GBooks and GScholar return nothing but trivial mentions. Google returns 133 unique results, none of which appear to be reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond to each of your comments in turn.
1. The entire article is about seascrapers. Just because they do not explicitly use the term does not mean that they aren't talking about it. Reading the article and just seeing the picture shows what they're talking about.
2. Again, they are talking about seascrapers without explicitly using the term. He's the guy who primarily builds them, for goodness sake.
3. Just because it's more specific, we can't use it? Let me give an example. I looked up tunnel. Which, clearly, gave me the article on tunnel. Then I looked up Gotthard Base Tunnel, there we go. Now, since the Gotthard Base Tunnel is more specific, does that mean that it cannot be referenced in the tunnel article? Of course not, as it is mentioned there. Now, what was your argument about being specific is wrong?
4. Which explains why, oh would you look at that, it's gone. Poof.
There are already enough reliable sources that talk directly about the subject to make it notable. You're too caught up in the term. SilverserenC 18:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing. As for renaming the article, I'll have to take another look at the available sources. — Rankiri (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I want to rename it. SilverserenC 19:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with the idea, it would make more sense to people who find the article. SilverserenC 18:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. I object to the above renaming proposal. For one, it's patently obvious that the mentioned Gyre Seascraper is anything but amphibious. The other problem is the seeming lack of significant coverage. Again, a term doesn't belong to WP unless it's specifically covered by at least a couple of reliable sources. If we want to rename it, it's better to rename it to something like Floating building. Google Books has a number of WP:RS sources for this one, including [6], [7], and [8]. — Rankiri (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But so does Amphibious Building, [9], [10], [11], and [12]. SilverserenC 19:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a source puts the single mention of the subject in quotes, it's probably not that good of a source. These are all trivial mentions. Besides, you don't seem to realize that the word "amphibious" means "able to operate both on land and water". That company's idea of an amphibious building is one of a small house floating on high tides or floodwater but resting on a solid platform when the water recedes. A building about the size of the Empire State Building obviously wouldn't operate in such a manner, would it? — Rankiri (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep Google news link shows four results. [13] proves it does exist, and is rather cool. If the article needs to be renamed, then discuss it on the talk page. That isn't a reason to delete something. Dream Focus 23:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to an architectural magazine in the article. [14] Even more notable coverage of this. Whatever the designers call it, is what the article should be named. Instead of Skyscrapers, most call them Waterscrapers. Dream Focus 23:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because there is a product named Marzocchi Super Monster doesn't mean that we should have an article on Super monster. Once again, unless you can come up with better sources, Seascraper and Waterscraper fall under WP:NEO. I could consider a compromise with a clear consensus on a better sourced title, but if it comes to keeping this version of the stub, there's really nothing in there worth saving. If you feel that you can make it encyclopedic, try userfication. — Rankiri (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFD's are not the place to have discussions about name changes. The talk pages of articles are supposed to do that. The point of the discussion at hand is to determine if the subject is notable, not the name. If you are admitting that the subject is notable, but that you don't agree with the name, then you should be voting keep and discussing a name change on the talk page, not here. SilverserenC 09:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:ATD, "Pages with incorrect names can simply be renamed via page movement procedure. Naming disputes are discussed on the articles' talk pages or listed at requested moves." They should be discussed on talk pages, not at AFD. SilverserenC 06:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage explicitly shows the equivalence of floating cruise liners and skyscrapers in scale and function. Taken along with the other sources that we have, it demonstrates that we have a topic worthy of note. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't believe I'm forced to quote it again, but a new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing. Your interpretation of the above sentence is irrelevant WP:SYNTH. — Rankiri (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is irrelevant because our topic here is the concept of large floating structures of this sort, not the words used to describe them. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so we must focus upon the topic, not the words. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with your argument is that it could just as easily be applied to Oceancondo, Watermansion, Aquahouse and dozens of similar neologisms. We're not discussing the concept of large floating structures. We're discussing a particular subject of "seascrapers" that apparently hasn't received enough direct coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with your argument is that it is a straw man. This is not an article about word(s), it is an article about a topic. It would work just as well under another title such as Floating skyscraper just as we have numerous articles about the similar concept of a Floating city. We have adequate sources to support the topic and so deletion is inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't mind, I'm not going to continue this repetitive discussion. My objections are based in concrete policies and guidelines. Your desire to keep the article is based on the existence of a completely unconnected subject of a much larger scope. If you feel that immense underwater structures deserve an article, try creating one that doesn't conflict with WP:N and WP:NEO. — Rankiri (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article I have in mind is not "completely unconnected" - it is the selfsame one that we are discussing here. You argument seems to be based upon a misunderstanding of the WP:NEO which is a style guideline, not a reason to delete. Its point is that we should write with clarity and so avoid words which our readers will not understand. Reworking and rewording to improve clarity is performed by normal editing, not by deletion and so there is no case for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia articles are not dictionary articles, are not whole dictionaries, and are not slang and usage guides. The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. Articles on neologisms that have not yet caught on widely are commonly deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. — Rankiri (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an article about a neologism - the focus of the article is the topic, not any particular word. Various authorities describe the topic in various ways. We have to pick one of them as the nominal title of the article but this is not the point of the article and so the guideline you quote is not applicable. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of WP:DICDEF. Aside from the unsourced definition, the article only has two descriptions of concept buildings that no one (except one of the building's authors and a couple of blogs) ever actually called seascrapers (see [15],[16], [17], [18], etc) and some irrelevant information on the mentioned "amphibious" buildings. — Rankiri (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be intentionally ignoring the facts. The proposed structures were submitted to skyscraper design competitions[19] and were called skyscrapers by nearly every single source. Only one of them ever used the term "seascraper" and only because that happened to be a part of the project's proper name. Mention them on skyscraper if you must. — Rankiri (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2010 (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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seascraper
No tags for this post.