- 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. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kinetic architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Still completely unreferenced after 4 years, and there's no strong evidence of notability, seems to be essentially something someone invented one day. Also pretty much a dicdef. Rememberway (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge It seems to be taught as the subject of it's own university course [1]. I sympathize with the article problems, and would not oppose non-binding merging if a reasonable article can't be created. Gigs (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic seems to be synonymous with Responsive architecture, but this article has no references, and makes no claim of notability.Rememberway (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect (changed to keep after extensive rewrite) to Interactive_architecture#Kinetics_in_Architecture or Responsive architecture. There is potential for an entry on this topic (not all kinetic architecture is interactive or responsive), but this isn't it, it's just a dicdef, and it's been persistently reverted to a garbled version by an editor who claims to have "invented" kinetic architecture, despite a clear case (made on the talk page) that it goes back more than a century. If someone wants to come up with a real encyclopedia entry, great, but this isn't it. I've asked for assistance both at RFC and at Wikiproject architecture concerning this page, with no response at all, so I appreciate the nomination, even if only for a discussion that's long overdue. Hairhorn (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So, you're saying that despite your opinion that "there is potential for an entry on this topic", it should be deleted (leaving behind merely a redirect) because "it's just a dicdef" and "it's been persistently reverted to a garbled version by an editor who claims to have 'invented' kinetic architecture". Oh no! Persistent vandalism, and not enough information? Good gravy! Surely this article should be deleted! ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 08:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it might be possible to write an entry on this topic isn't going to save an unsourced dicdef that's more than 3 and a half years old. Hairhorn (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So, because it's newly created and rather minimalist, it ought to be deleted? I suggest you take a gander at WP:PRESERVE, my friend.— Preceding unsigned comment added by S8333631 (talk • contribs)
- Huh? it's from 2007. Hairhorn (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability is pretty obvious from just looking at a few of the sources found by following the spoon-fed links in the nomination by clicking the words "books" and "scholar". We only delete articles for being dictionary definitions if they don't have potential for encyclopedic expansion. Articles with such potential are known as "stubs" and are the foundations on which most of our content is built. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well before this is over I hope someone other than me can either rewrite it or revert it to its last non-garbled version. Every change I've made to this entry has been reverted by the same user, who also removed the AFD tag from the entry. Hairhorn (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How about, instead of demanding that the article be deleted, you go to dispute resolution with User:Kitaro. It seems like their the problem, not this article (when it isn't garbled).☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 01:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When did I make any demands? I didn't nominate this entry. As for Kitaro, I have already tried RFC and the Wikiproject page, as I already mentioned above. Hairhorn (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe demand is the wrong word, but you are advocating its deletion. And as for the dispute resolution, it's really none of my business, but there are higher levels you can go to... ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 04:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be Kept I want to thank all of those who really understand the notability of the current definition which is a modern intent to make it different from earlier versions. There are links to other sources on the theme that might give a scope on it. I do want to improve the definition I ready wrote as the current one and not to delete because Mr. Hairhorn does not like it.
Since August 2010 the article never had other critics but just Mr. Hairhorn and personally no one has wrote to me saying that they can not understand the definition, in fact, they felicitate me for bringing it here at Wikipedia.
My experimental project denominated as " The Arkinetic House" will provide more depth into this definition on Kinetic Architecture because of its complexity. That is why It is mentioned that:.... building transforms its interior or exterior structural components by the use of motion through technological innovation.The use of robotics, mechanics and electronics are being better known as new approaches into architectural possibilities'..... Some arduino mechanics systems that are currently used for robotics plays a lot on the big scope for the current definition. Motion could be manually or by electronic systems, so I feel the current definition should be kept until someone comes with a better one.
An astrophysics, friend of mine in Switzerland, Jerome N. felicitate me for the definition on Kinetic Architecture and by the experimental project I am designing since 2003. One instructor at Harvard, Prof. Kostas who teaches Kinetics never said one word against the current definition, instead he is felicitating me for the experimental project too.
I highly want you to keep the current definition which brings a lot of thoughts on how architecture changes by technology.
With my whole respect, kitaro
- Editor kitaro, thanks for expanding this article to create an excellent base for the further improvments just made by the rescue squad. I hope you like them and are able to expand the article even more as you seem to have excelent contacts in this area. As the Colonel says this should nicely complement our existing artitecture articles and hopefully it will inspire the architecture project to improve their own articles to a similar standard. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you believe there is any possible chance of someone rewriting something, if its a redirect? Dream Focus 02:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, why not? Gigs (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have covered a redirect with a new article at Philadelphia Parking Authority, so of course it is possible.
- Comment I have added {{WikiProjectBannerShell|
{{WikiProject Architecture|class=Start|importance=low|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Engineering|class=Start|importance=low|nested=yes}}
}} to the talk page. If a page is being rescued, then it should at least have templates for the relevant Wikipedia projects. I am not voting on the merits of the article in its present state. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Dream Focus This user "Dream Focus" page was nominated for deletion, I do not know why he keeps commenting on this discussion as he could be not so trustful.kitaro
- Your comment makes no sense at all. Both times it ended as keep. And the rules are to focus on the current discussion, not attack other Wikipedia editors. Dream Focus 04:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewriting
Kinetic Architecture : Ancient Greek κινητικός (kinētikos, "one who puts in motion")
Architecture: Greek ἀρχιτέκτων – arkhitekton, from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder, carpenter, mason"). Is an architectural design concept where a building is transforming, moving or changing by the use of natural or unnatural sources through technological innovations. The use of robotics, mechanics and electronics are being better known as new approaches into its architectural possibilities.
kitaro
- kitaro, please limit your comments to the content at hand, not the unrelated history of other contributors. Gigs (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewriting Kinetic Architecture Definition
Kinetic Architecture Ancient Greek κινητικός (kinētikos, "one who puts in motion")
Architecture: Greek ἀρχιτέκτων – arkhitekton, from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder, carpenter, mason"). is the property of a building to respond to changing conditions such as use, aesthetic or environmental factors that would alter architectural form. The use of robotics, mechanics and electronics are being better known as new approaches into its architectural possibilities.
kitaro
I found we could improve the article by adding historical facts on when the term was used first as I just had a conversation with professor Clark who created it in 1970 with Professor Zuk. It does not mean that because he created the term in 1970 nobody could created it later on. That is what happened to me when in 1989 I ( Architect,Jose Leonidas Mejia A. " Kitaro" ) created the term in 1989 as "Arquitectura Kinetica" when experimenting on moving objects applied to architecture. In 1989 there was no globalized information, nor even internet and my former region (Colombia. South America) the term was not even known not even in the world, so under the circumstances I will keep sustaining the creation of the term since 1989, please understand those facts when adding historical notes on when was term created and who were the ones who craeted along the different period of times.kitaro —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- The fact that you can't come up with a reliable source after all this time, and even in the middle of a deletion review means that I cannot change my strong recommendation from DELETE or REDIRECT.Rememberway (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User colonel warden and others have agreed to keep it. You are right, we are on a time for redefine the concept by finding more reliable sources, and that is what I am doing. Please be patient and instead of asking for deletion, you should be helping to endure the topic.
I will insert historical facts that will make it better.
This is an scenario for committing a true effort, Not a deletion scenario just because you say so.
kitaro —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- That's a reasonable point, except that it is a policy discussion, not a vote. In the absence of a single reliable source, this fails the verifiability and notability policies. If you cannot satisfy the policies, then it needs to be deleted. I would have no problem against it being recreated if you can later come up with even a single reference that proves it is notable.Rememberway (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much appreciate the rewrite/expansion, which is well worth a keep. I would only ask those involved to watch the page, to keep it from being persistently reverted all over again. Thank you. Hairhorn (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2011 (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.