Talk:National Museum of the American People

File:10th Street View.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

 * The image has now been approved for use on Wikipedia per case number #2011092610013436 - Markeer 21:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Banneker Park
The currently proposed location for the National Museum of the American People is Benjamin Banneker Park, which is located at an overlook at the south end of L'Enfant Promenade. L'Enfant Plaza and Benjamin Banneker Park and Memorial, Washington, D.C. describe a twenty-year long history of reports and controversies concerning various redevelopment proposals for the site of this park, one of the most significant of which was a proposal to build a baseball stadium at the site. The article about L'Enfant Plaza states that the stadium (Nationals Park) was eventually constructed in Southeast D.C. The new proposal to construct the National Museum of the American People at the site is another such idea. The articles about L'Enfant Plaza and Benjamin Banneker Park state that the D.C. Preservation League has listed the park as one of the most endangered places in Washington, D.C. because of the various redevelopment proposals that would impact the park.

Although the American People Museum proposal is still in its initial phases, National Museum of the American People needs to summarize the more significant parts of the history of the previous proposals for redevelopment of Benjamin Banneker Park and the recorded opposition to any such proposal. The article should also contain images that illustrate the current appearance of the site. This will enable readers to understand this history without needing to locate details of each proposal in the articles that describe L'Enfant Plaza and Benjamin Banneker Park. This history and those images will greatly improve the usefullness of National Museum of the American People to its readers. Corker1 (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your comments give extraordinary undue weight to controversies unrelated to the article subject, but instead relating only to a peripheral topic. This museum is a proposal earning an article due to verifiable secondary coverage.  Until it progresses to a point where locations for this project are being discussed, it is extremely inappropriate (and honestly extremely odd) to redirect attention to controversies and discussion regarding a location where this museum is not situated, may never be situation, has not officially by any governmental body been considered to be situated.  I created this article and certainly mentioned the site, but only in connection to an architectural concept image of the project.  If you visit the website for this museum project, they clearly state that any location would be investigated by a presidential commission, and decided on by three different governmental offices.  It also clearly mentions that the Banneker overlook is only one of several possible sites that a commission might someday choose to look at.


 * I'm removing your additional paragraph and images again, and I'll refer you to the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. You've added to this article (and that's wonderful, many of your edits look great) but once I reverted your aside regarding a location vaguely-but-not-really related to this article's topic, the correct next step is to discuss it as we're doing here.  If you can find a consensus for inclusion of your comments about a location in Washington DC that does not currently and may never have this museum, you can then include it again, but please do not do so before you have such a consensus by Wikipedia's preferred process.


 * I hope I'm not coming across as sounding mean-spirited here, and I hope you note I did not revert a great number of your other excellent edits, but the paragraph and additional images about the location very clearly don't belong in this article. They belong in the article about that subject. Markeer 01:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)