Deletion of Seascraper

Comment: I object to the above renaming proposal. For one, it's patently obvious that the mentioned http://www.greenmuze.com/images/stories/photos/build/design/des110/gyre1.jpg Gyre Seascraper is anything but amphibious. The other problem is the seeming lack of significant coverage. Again, a term doesn't belong to WP unless it's specifically covered by at least a couple of reliable sources. If we want to rename it, it's better to rename it to something like :Floating building. Google Books has a number of  sources for this one, including http://books.google.com/books?id=Z4D-0J9R4QMC&pg=PA468&dq=%22floating+Building&ei=Lx2lS9uWG5juyATtyYXBCA&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22floating%20Building&f=false, http://books.google.com/books?id=A9qWqqoaQMAC&pg=PA347&dq=%22floating+Building&ei=Lx2lS9uWG5juyATtyYXBCA&cd=6#v=onepage&q=%22floating%20Building&f=false, and http://ftp.resource.org/bsc.ca.gov/title24_part03_dice/title24_part03_page0532.pdf
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: This doesn't fall under  as the article is describing a possible building structure, it is not speculating about a future event. Rather, a more appropriate nomination would be under eolgism. I, however, do not support the deletion of this article as this is a term that is indeed used, and is not vague in its definition. There are articles relating to what future seascrapers may look like for example
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:N)

Comment: EO. Although the earlier comments claim that the article is sufficiently sourced to meet , it is simply not true
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)