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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Tower (Midland, Texas)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet existing building. Not yet notable. | Uncle Milty | talk | 07:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The building isn't yet built, isn't yet approved and this page seems like someone who opposes the project is attempting to use it as a propaganda tool, based on the edit history. Very inflammatory language. Atx1016 (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is being used as a battleground between developers and historic re-use advocates, but the proposed building is notable. Bloomberg has a writeup: "Midland Counts on 53-Story Tower as Oil Again Buoys Texas". The Wall Street Journal reports the controversial plan: "Energy Boom Sparks Building Spree in West Texas: As Many Companies Prosper, Opinions Diverge on a Proposed Office Tower That Would Dominate Midland's Skyline". The local Amarillo Globe-News has a writeup: "'Tall City' may get a lot taller". The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat have a news item: "Energy Tower to Rise in Midland, Texas". Local news Permian Basin published at least two articles: "Midlanders Have Mixed Feelings Over New Energy Tower" and "Energy Tower Set To Take Place Of Old Midland Courthouse Virtually Revealed". The architectural database Emporis has a listing: "Energy Tower at City Center". CBS affiliate KOSA carried a story: "Out With The Old County Courthouse, In With The Tallest Tower In Midland". Local channel 9 news carried a story: "Developers Unveil Details for Energy Tower in Midland". Local channel 10 news put out pretty much the same story: "Developers Unveil Details for Energy Tower in Midland". The Fort Worth Star-Telegram wrote an article: "Hedge fund manager is bullish on Midland". Change.org has a petition up to save the old courthouse. Mywesttexas.com has a ton of discussion on the topic. Various online skyscraper forums are talking about it. There is definitely a topic here, even if it is a difficult one to keep neutral. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Binksternet. I just semi-protected the article for a week which should hopefully cut down on the POV pushing. Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even in light of reliable third-party sources which reference the proposed building, something which is nonexistent cannot meet notability guidelines in and of itself. However, based upon those same sources, I believe the controversy about the building does meet notability. I would therefore respectfully suggest that the article should be about the Energy Tower Controversy. After it's actually built (assuming that it ever is built, in light of the controversy), the article about the controversy could be merged into one comprehensive article about the Energy Tower. HillbillyGoat (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- HillbillyGoat (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are dozens of articles on Wikipedia about things that do not exist. There is no requirement for something to be built in order for it to have an article. Many architectural articles are started even when the building is not yet completed. As an extreme example, the Dynamic Tower has never been approved to be built by anybody, anywhere, yet the article exists, and it survived a deletion request in 2008. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - either move the article to a "controversy" as suggested above, or delete it per WP:HAMMER - since it does not exist beyond the design/permitting phase, I'm not sure such an article should remain. I have no problem with an article about the controversy, which is essentially what the extensive coverage shows. When and if it is built, the article can be moved back, overriding the redirect. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. Just now I went to HAMMER to see what it said, but all I could get was that it is about article titles for topics that are not yet named, not about deleting articles, nor about topics which have a fairly solid name such as this one. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and at its current title) per Binks' references found. There is no requirement that something actually has to exist in order to have an article on it, itself - note the article on a certain cryptid is at Bigfoot, not Bigfoot myth. This subject clearly passes WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are a large number of not-yet-completed buildings with articles, so that's clearly not a barrier. Its imminent construction is extremely well documented and the building itself more than passes GNG. If there are issues with editing disputes that should be resolved so the article can move forward - deleting it is the exact wrong approach. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 01:44, 24 April 2013 (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.