Deletion of Ultima Tower

Comment: It's interesting, but interesting is not a reason to keep. When duplicates were omitted, I found http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ultima+tower%22&hl=en&start=170&sa=N 177 google hits. The only new |usable source I found among them was this http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0208,baard,32475,1.html Village Voice article which mentions it as one of many "super buildings." If there were a parent article on such things, I'd suggest merger there. There doesn't seem to be
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: mdash; there do not appear to be any |reliable sources supporting this as anything than one designer's pipe dream.  I can't find any sources treating it as either influential, important, or even a "going concern
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: From : ''Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced.'' I think that this article is verified from at least a primary source (the designer's website), and the design http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ultima+tower&btnG=Google+Search has been covered in other news sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)