Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllotaxy towers

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.  Sandstein  11:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllotaxy towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The page seems to be about a prospective style of building designed by the writer. No evidence that any building have been constructed using this technique and no sources about this type of construction. There are two groups who have similar designs [1] [2] but dont use the term Phyllotaxy towers and these are concept pieces. The central concept has no references and fails WP:N. Salix (talk): 15:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability. - MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This term doesn't seem to exist outside of uses by its creator. Similar concept projects use different terminology and are not directly related. Taking them as a whole risks novel synthesis, but still fails to demonstrate notability. Note that although the article is facially well-referenced, none of the references address the subject. Most of the citations are used to reference points unrelated to the topic (primarily, the lack of yards in traditional high-rise construction, and similar topics); those which appear to reference things directly related to "phyllotaxy towers" (such as the two references in the Outcomes section) do not mention the topic and do not support the claims they are being used to cite. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Read References Has anyone above read entire of the article's references including five 300-pages books and 10 scientific papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleh Masoumi (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I have not literally read every page of every reference, I have examined those which are available online. There is a great deal written in these works about sustainability, about interfacing with the environment, about considering climate and biology in new building design. There is not, so far as I have been able to determine, anything about "phyllotaxy towers". Nor have I been able to locate any substantive coverage in other reliable sources that are independent of its creator. I understand that the topics these references do discuss provide the background for this article's topic, but without similar references that directly address the topic, Wikipedia considers this original research and will not be able to retain it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  

Indented line — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleh Masoumi (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Wikipedia is a second-hand source of knowledge?

• ALL OF THE ANALOG AND DIGITAL SCIENTIFIC SOURCES RELATED TO THIS ARTICLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleh Masoumi (talk • contribs) 19:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC) The main problem is: Wikipedia MUST first asks ALL of the experts in the field of architecture and botany. Also editors of wikipedia MUST read all of the digital and ANALOG sources (one by one, page by page, line by line and word by word) about the subjects, because something may be found about "Phyllotactic Architecture" and it may take years and years. Without proceeding these stages Wikipedia hasn't the right to delete an article because it is an illegal action.[reply]

• Wikipedia is not a second-hand source of knowledge. It is a third-hand source of knowledge; a tertiary source. Wikipedia's policies prevent its editors from, for example, polling experts in the fields of architecture or botany. The results of such an effort would be considered original research and could not be included. Likewise, Wikipedia editors cannot reach a conclusion from disparate bits of information, even when the sources of that information otherwise would meet our standards for references. Here, that is called novel synthesis, and is considered another form of original research. I understand that you are saying the sources cited in this article contain the information that you have syncretized into "phyllotactic architecture" or the design of "phyllotaxy towers" (or any similar phrase). But those sources do not make those connections themselves; they do not use those terms. For inclusion of a concept, reliable third-party sources must address it directly and must provide it significant coverage. And at least at the present time, I do not see evidence of any such sources that have done so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--2.187.98.165 (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)You do not see evidence of any such sources because you can not see all the sources about the subject. Just everybody can do such a huge work (It can be a research itself). Therefore, there is always possibility to exist such a phrase in for example an analog book in indian pesrsian or Japanese language. who knows? It will take some years for you to prove it.[reply]

You have it backward. The burden of proof is on you to find such a source if you want to keep the article. - MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an expression says: Just everyone knows every-things.--2.187.111.34 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who has any official academic Architecture PhD. Degree here? I think it's better to ask an expert in the field.--2.187.111.34 (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can not judge an article just through searching a "phrase" on Google. there are lots of analog books and other sources we don't know about them. just scientists in the field can judge truly.--2.187.111.34 (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak point of Wikipedia

It's very weak point of Wikipedia that only 2 or 3 people participate in most discussions!!!

A new source

You can find more about "phyllotactic architecture" here--2.187.126.37 (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Still doesn't support the claims in the article. The article talks about applying phyllotactic patterns to high-rise construction. The reference provided (a published doctoral dissertation that is a reliable, if primary, source) only makes brief mention of application to physical building construction, where it cautions against direct application to supportive structure, and is concerned primarily with domes regardless. Furthermore, even if the community were to concede that this reference did contribute toward notability for the article's topic, Wikipedia's inclusion standards require multiple, independent, third-party sources. As an aside: it would probably not hurt if someone was willing to refactor this AFD discussion for readability; as I'm clearly involved in the discussion, that someone won't be me. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 Case Studies

• BAMBOO SUNFLOWER TOWER
• FIBONACCI TOWER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.187.97.249 (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, since there's an open invitation on an undoubtedly interesting topic, let's be bold and venture a try. I've not often seen an AfD where both points of view were so clearly at cross purposes.

The Phyllo-architect(s) believe that a concept - let's call it "Phyllotaxis in architecture", say, is interesting, well-defined, and plainly discussed in numerous reliable sources such as (... Le Corbusier ... P for Thames Gateway ... in Eden Project Arno Pronk Jerry Tate: Eden ...P in Shadow Pavilion ...P for Domes and indeed the seeming CoI source Phyllotaxy Towers by Saleh Masoumi. What, the architects ask, isn't that easily enough RS for you guys?

In the opposite corner are the experienced Wiki-pundits. They believe that an article that reads like an essay by someone clearly unacquainted with the finer points of citations and unafraid to be an expert in a lofty profession is positively unencyclopedic. Why, the article reads as if it was written by an architect! And a careful Google search for "Phyllotaxy Towers" returns no result but a CoI! Let's take it to AfD at once.

There is, I think, easily room in Wikipedia for a new, properly sourced article on "Phyllotaxis in architecture". Whether that article would be named "Phyllotaxy Towers" is, I suspect, quite doubtful - Domes and the Eden Project don't fit in that box at all easily. The white tower image from the article at AfD would do nicely as an illustration - if we can clean off the watermarks (more cross purposes). The article would bluelink neatly to Biomimicry, Patterns in nature (blushes), and to Kröller-Müller Museum and Jay Kappraff, for example.

Finally, is there useful text in Phyllotaxy towers, and does it have worthwhile sources for the new article? I think yes. Does it need rewriting and citing with the sources listed above? Yes. Should we edit the existing or start over? We need to decide. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't normally like to play the role of the "Wiki-pundit" and criteria stickler; I think of myself as fairly inclusionist. In this case, though, the problem really is the content in the article. I think some intersection of biology-inspired structural design and architecture could form the basis for a properly sourced article, although I'm not at all certain what that article should be titled (personally, I suspect the solution is to widen the scope further for an article at biomimetic architecture, which has some currency in the field). In any case, it's not this. The problem here is that this is a single author's work, with a bunch of references that don't really support its claims. You'll note that most of the new references you provided are to dome-like structures, blobitecture, or ornamental construction. Reliable sources do not really discuss the idea of a residential high-rise on this model. They do not discuss the idea that apartments with more sky access might be psychologically considered houses. They do not discuss using a floorplan inspired by phyllotaxy as a means to put yards in apartments. They do not make the claim (or discuss the claim) that such a residential structure would have sufficient additional solar energy availability to negate or exceed the additional energy costs of climate control inherent in the larger surface area. Those are the salient points of the article, illustrated with computer-model mockup images that aren't declared as such. There may be (indeed, almost certianly is) article potential inherent in the broader topics, but what we've got at AFD is still all OR. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I've been making notes for such an article, and there is a place in it for a paragraph on towers, pointing out that they offer a neat way of giving each flat/apt. a bit of sky and privacy, ref Masoumi. The rest of the article, using the refs we've listed above, is on domes et al. Whether it's P. architecture or B. architecture is likely not v. important as we can redirect. The current WP:OR content is only causing confusion. Do we edit or WP:TNT? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we have to TNT. Reliable sources in the field are just silent on the claims in this article, and the central issues to the mainstream field are very different than these. I'm not even sure we can import a paragraph on this tower material because the Masoumi ref doesn't appear to be a reliable source (Archivenue is a Wordpress site). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per discussion above - article is OR with sources that largely do not support the text as written. We believe that a different article on a broader topic such as Biomimetic architecture could with benefit use the sources discovered here, and could cover phyllotactic architecture in its various forms, including towers. Perhaps when various such towers have been built there will be sufficient sources on the narrower topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  

There are lots of not been proven theories on Wikipedia. why don't you delete all of them?--2.187.97.249 (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to replace images with UN-watermarked ones...Regards.--Saleh Masoumi (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PHYLLOTACTIC ARCHITECTURE or PHYLLOTAXIS IN ARCHITECTURE

Phyllotaxy Towers (Phyllotactic Towers) are a kind of "Phyllotactic Architecture" or a sort of practical applying of "Phyllotaxis in Architecture". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleh Masoumi (talk • contribs) 09:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A new Architectural System not an specific building

Important point is "Phyllotaxy Towers" ARE a system of architecture not just a specific building. on the other hand there would be different types of phyllotaxy towers with using different phyllotactic patterns for different geographic areas.--Saleh Masoumi (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEO, WP:HAMMER. Perhaps later? Bearian (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2012 (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.