Talk:Glass Tower

Notability

ah yes, a needlessly detailed article full of needless speculation based on a fictional building from a mildly obscure movie made thirty years ago. This is why I love the internet. 75.75.110.235 00:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not quite an obscure movie - actually a huge hit. The details listed by this article are emphatically stated and emphasised throughout the film - it is not like bits of obscure trivia only a true fan could ever know. That said, no realy reason why this should not be rolled back into the main article. Not really all that notable. Format (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Do we really need this article? There are no citations or anything (I guess I shouldn't be talking since I do that a lot myself). The movie was a hit, but we could still just merge it with the movie. Irish Techno Zombie 23:15, May 16, 2009 (UTC)

Notability

It makes me laugh how Wikipedia works. How some articles can be so introspective and self serving yet other articles like this one, which just gives an added perspective on a famous cinematic tower has its notability questioned. Which if it's not well known, raises the question of rhetorical questions, because the article's subject, is by the nature of the film's own title: The Towering Inferno, er the central issue of the piece. Is it not?

Yet there are repeated calls to get rid of this article? Why! What harm does an article like this do? None, that I can see. It's just giving a wider audience a little more information about a titular structure that appeared in a very famous/well known/watched movie. IS that not what Wikipedia is meant to do? Provide information; where is the assumption of "good faith" or that all articles must fit a [criteria]?

It sad to think that the Wikipedia Project must protect (in the interests our shared knowledge) articles on the usage of the word nigger or that future generations need to understand autofellatio or buttplugs.

But an article about the named structure in an iconic 1970s' disaster film (which spawned a whole themed industry for the next decade) must be expunged from Wikipedia.

• Autofellatio and buttplugs aren't fictional. All this topic needs to stay around is some secondary sources, or maybe it should be merged into the movie's article. Abductive (reasoning) 05:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

*Sigh* Why are you even bothering to edit anything on here? Your logic, if I can call it that, means anything "fictional" has no validity on this site because it would be based on secondary sources except those of the work itself. In that case...we'd better started tagging the works of Shakespeare, Longfellow, Poe, et al for immediate deletion as they all contain fictional "characters" which can only ever be discussed through secondary sources = Hamlet.

My sarcasm is to demonstrates that you have a complete inability to understand how sources work. The film is the primary source, like any play by Shaw or Keats. This means unless they left a literary review of their works, any commentary about the content of the work is secondary as it did not come from the original source: the author, creator etc

As for Autofellatio and buttplugs, you can't prove they are not fictional, unless you own or are a practitioner of such disgusting articles. Using again, your own illogic, it would seem to suggest that the only people fit to edit pages like these are those that practise such things. As they are → de facto primary sources....any books written by non practitioner are entirely secondary evidence.