Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big architecture
From same author as Post-quasi-megastructural_degenerative_disease above. Reads like, well... I'm not quite sure how to describe it... Orphaned, hoax-y, Google search simply has hits with the words big and architecture next to each other, no sign of a general theory. -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Same as above article. Hoax. Speedy delete - Tεxτurε 19:31, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Dunno yet.(See below) It's certainly POV. I think the title is only a problem because it is the wrong title. I'm not sufficiently au courant with architecture to know what the right title would be. Monumental architecture? I've heard people speak deprecatingly of "the edifice complex" in relation to buildings that are gigantic for the purpose of projecting someone's ego rather than for the purpose of functioning efficiently. This article, of course, is currently biassed in favor of monumental architecture. I was strongly tempted to edit it to read "From the 18th century French visionary Étienne-Louis Boullée to Albert Speer to 21st century megastructuralist Vedanta Balbahadur," but decided that would be inappropriate... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)- Delete: Dreaming of big buildings is easy. Getting someone to pay for building big is another, and getting rid of whatever stands in the way is another again. This is a rave. Geogre 21:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Bad title, and as it stands it's just a POV remark. If someone wants to work on this, start it under an appropriate title and if it's mostly about opinions, they should be quoted and cited. -- Jmabel 21:48, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, Jmabel is right. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:06, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism with no currency. — Gwalla | Talk 01:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)