Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane proof building

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 21:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane proof building

Inherently POV how-to guide ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 17:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke it. --Golbez 18:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete howto guide. could be rewritten - but currently is probably a speedy candidate. LOL Golbez :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very useful topic and needs to be expanded to help people make good decisions about building in hurricane prone areas. More knowledge in this area could save lives....
we have a guide for seismic retrofit, why not a guide for hurricanes, etc?
If it's really useful, it should be transwikied to Wikibooks and a link created from the page on hurricanes, yes? Alba 22:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for a while. The article was posted only today and it looks like the author intends to expand it. I certainly would be interested in reading how buildings are built to be hurricane-proof. However, the article should be written not as a “how-to” but as a discussion of the methods used to reinforce buildings to withstand hurricanes. ♠ DanMS 22:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps move to a better title like Hurricane precautions. Notable, useful, can easily be presented in an encyclopedic tone ("Authorities typically recommend..." or "A common practice is for people to...") instead of a how-to. Cite copious sources, as plenty exist. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per DanMS and BD2412. -- Kjkolb 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not enough in there to save. If kept, the title should be changed to something like Building Cyclone ressistant structures. I think it would be better to change Building standards to an article that would cover issues like this or issues like snow load and cyclones or freezing temperatures. Since there is a lot of common information there, one article would be more encyclopedic than several articles. Vegaswikian 06:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I already voted keep above, so I can’t vote again. But I like Vegaswikian’s idea about expanding this article to include not only hurricanes but other natural and weather phenomena that have to be considered in housing construction. Would be a very interesting article. ♠ DanMS 22:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's info about hurricane proof building design, but it is scattered all over the internet. Wikipedia is a good place to consolidate it all. However, all work stops on an article after vandals threaten to delete it. I've had several works in progress deleted by people who just sit around all day deleting stuff on wikipedia.
- I wikified the formatting of the comment above, which was malformed. The comment was posted by 71.131.43.185, whose IP address is similar but not identical to that of the article’s author. People should realize that a vote or comment carries a lot more weight when it is signed. ♠ DanMS 22:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see why you would think this is Point of View. Wind loading, etc is an architecture topic. Maybe the recent hurricanes have made some people a bit too sensative. I would not combine it with a building designed for snow load as they are different issues and different solutions. It's a stub (basically a request for article outline) which should be added to if it gets past the AfD trial.
Rewrite - this topic could be rewritten as an overview of different techniques that are used to hurricane-proof buildings. However, as it stands it's a how-to guide, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (it is appropriate for Wikibooks, however; see Wikipedia is not an instruction manual). Ziggurat 23:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely needs a rewrite, but definitely could prove encyclopaedic after that rewrite. Certainly wouldn't be POV after a rewrite - either something stands up to a hurricane or it doesn't - there's no two ways about that, and a Force 12 wind is pretty objective in its assessment of buildings. Grutness...wha? 09:18, 2 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.