Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton Tower

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. – Avi 04:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Tower

Insufficiently notable for an article (and currently very low quality as an article). – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this, this, and this, I am confused. Uncle G 18:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone ahead and added those links to the article. I wonder if this is too soon for an article though, or if this is a crystal ball situation. --RoninBK_ETC 19:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crystal ball rule. This seems like a big deal for Brighton but it doesn't seem that notable otherwise. Most large developments have some level of political back-and-forth. --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. EVula 21:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep! - I live in Brighton (Actually the city of Brighton & Hove). This is a massive modernisation project of the largely georgian-victorian costal city of Brighton. It has been very widely reported in the UK and has attainted quite some controversy! Its basically going to change the image of argueably Britains most popular sea-side resort and a major tourist attraction. It will affect all 160,000 people who live in Brighton, not to mention countless other people who visit the city and will likely become a major british landmark associated with the popular sea-side resort of Brighton. It will replace the west pier and palace pier as the symbol of a the city its anticipated. Its actually a very very important article. I cannot emphasise a strong keep enough. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 22:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please cite some of this reporting. Those of us who actually have cited reports have been confused by the mutual disagreements amongst them. At the moment, I haven't seen anything that agrees with this article at all, making my opinion that it should be deleted for being unverifiable. Uncle G 07:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as written. Perhaps someone could find newspaper articles showing multiple nontrivial coverage in mainstream publications, if it has been so widely written up.Edison 23:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this seems to be a big deal on the south coast, perhaps a smerge and redirect to Brighton would be most appropriate? Grutness...wha? 00:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Brighton Marina tower or merge with Brighton Marina. [1], [2] and [3] are examples of verifiable news coverage from the BBC over an extended period of time. DWaterson 00:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Abstain. I'm totally confused. It appears that this article is in fact about a third new tower proposed for Brighton. At first I assumed it was about the proposed I360, then the recently approved 40 storey Brighton Marina development those BBC links I provided related to, but actually it appears to be about a proposed 43 storey one. This forum post [4] appears to be the only thing I can find about it. It doesn't even seem to be on RMJM's website yet [5]. DWaterson 01:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – regarding which tower this actually is: the Brighton article recently had mention of this building added to it, in addition to an apparently separate "Marina Tower". (I removed the latter because it was a link to a building in Swansea, though I understand from the above that there is to be a Brighton Marina Tower too.) Certainly, the reference to neighbouring Sussex Heights (reference made in the Brighton article, and presumably in this article too, although here it's written "Sussex House") places the tower in the heart of Brighton, not at the marina. Also, just to clarify, my nomination isn't just to open the discussion, it's also a delete "vote". The place for this, if anywhere, is in the Brighton article or perhaps Landmarks and notable buildings of Brighton and Hove. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad not to be the only one who is confused. ☺ Uncle G 07:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung or Merge with Brighton Marina.--Tony 04:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per WikipedianProlific Alpharigel 19:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
commentI'm not going to argue it all relentlessly to be honest as I have other projects both on wiki and elsewhere which are consuming all my time. So I have to apologise and say I can't sift through the internet and papers to uncover sources about the tower in media. All I can tell you is this tower will be a.) one of the tallest buildings in the United Kingdom and Europe, b.) It will have a massive local impact and most of all c.) it will likely be a British landmark, known by just about everyone in the UK and many from the US, Europe and elsewhere within 10-20 years time. Its being made by the designers of the London Eye....that in itself suggests this is not just going to be some small tower block affair. For that reason it really does deserve its own article. I'm a very impartial wikipedian, speaking up in an AfD is really very out of character for me, and as a resident of Brighton I have a somewhat unique perspective on it. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 22:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That certainly does sound genuinely notable and interesting, and (as the proposer of the deletion) I'd say that I for one will be all in favour of an article on it, when it happens, or when documentation about the project is available. But without concrete (unambiguous) evidence, it's original research and unsuitable for Wikipedia. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to back out on this as I'm now unsure which tower this article is refering to. I to thought it was refering to the i360. But now am unsure as per the other post highlighting similar concerns above. I recommend a redirect to i360 tower perhaps or deletion is the right thing to do. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 14:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable and there is no reliable sources. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 03:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not yet meet the requirements of WP:V, but of course welcome back when it does. -- Satori Son 14:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the BBC seems to have coverage of it ([6]) and therefore thsi meets WP:V. Cynical 21:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's a list of search results via the BBC search engine, and the first two are in the utterly different New Brighton which is in Merseyside! After that I see various references to all sorts of other towers. If you've found a specific BBC article which relates to this tower, could you please link to it directly? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep. It generates controversy NOW [7], so should be kept. And it is project by Frank Gehry=NOTABLE. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 21:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: that too is a different tower, which is indeed notable due to the architect. But it's not in Brighton, it's in Hove, at the site of the King Alfred Leisure Centre; the Brighton article mentions it in reference to the Marina development. Neither of these are the tower near Sussex Heights nor the West Pier referred to in the various versions of the article which is the subject of the present vote, nor the text surrounding the link to it which appeared in the Brighton article. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:31, 29 October 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.