Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Heroes Museum


 * 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   delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

American Heroes Museum

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Recently opened museum. Author has blatant COI and gives no evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth 05:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blatant WP:COI. Article makes no mention of why the museum or its collection has any notability. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Eddie.willers (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - unsalvageably tainted by conflict of interest. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've run some searches but  the museum only  seems to  be listed on tourist directories, and it doesn't  have its own  website. 100% COI and blatant  advertising  even if it  is a free, not-for-profit organisation.--Kudpung (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You Win - Fine, you win. There is only so much I can do for this museum.  The local newspaper covered our museum extensively before and during it's opening.  There is nothing I can do to stop the paper from deleting its own archive after 14 days.  There nothing I can do to erase the reviews of the old museum from 3 years ago.  I'm desparately working to get a website up on Google sites as quickly as possible.  But since everyone here offers deletion instead of solutions to help this museum, carry on.  There is nothing more I can do. --AmericanHeroesMuseum (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)American Heroes Museum
 * Comment By Way of Response. Perhaps you should try and understand the aims of the Wikipedia project with regard to establishments such as this museum. Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages, nor is it a tourist guide or trade directory. Anything written about here has to be capable of being verified by independent, third-party sources. Additionally, there is a threshold for notability - a thing does not warrant inclusion simply by existing. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's raison d'etre and rewrite your article to satisfy the various criteria against which it will be measured. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. User:American Heroes Museum should have the modesty to desist. When the museum becomes notable, someone with no COI will write about. &mdash; RHaworth 20:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There may be a problem with tone, but it's not irresolvable, especially if other editors pitch in. I don't know what this editor's relationship is to the museum, but an objective article referencing their collection could be a good addition.  --Sainge.spin (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Our lack of significance will not compare to your standards any time soon. The article is erased
 * Comment and Unblanked You can't erase it yet. (Procedural rule, and defeatism...) I've put it back - to see what it said as well. To me, it (now) doesn't look like spam. Possibly minor notability, unless outside references turn up. I haven't looked into this one's independence, but here it is: http://www.jetsettersmagazine.com/archive/jetezine/hotels/nv/laughlin/ramada/express.html Put in references to your coverage by the local press. Find some more refs - not blogs, not self-published (your Google site would only be any good as an external link, not a reference), not press releases - and put them in. Would the American Heroes have given up? Not writing an article about something you're connected with is a guideline, not a rule. Probably a third of Wikipedia would disappear if it were a rule set in stone. So long as you use a neutral tone AND REFERENCE PROPERLY, you can do it. Peridon (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It Already - What you see online is the old museum. That was closed 3 years ago.  My article talked about that.  No one related to the previous project wants it referenced.  The close of the Ramada displays was badly-executed and an embarrasment.  My article was an attempt to bring the museum into the present day.  Would the American Heroes give up you ask?  I am a qualified submariner from the Cold War.  I didn't have to endure the poorly educated vilification of the Vietnam vets as they returned from the fighting.  According to the previous contributors, we are not notable enough.  With help like that, it will be a while before we are.  We are a poorly funded museum of military history in a small apethetic town.  Heroes, American or otherwise, never had to prove their "notability" until now.  Personally, I support myself through means outside this museum.  So my time and energy to absorb the steep learning curve of Wikipedian standards is limited.  Someone else may make another attempt at a later date.  Get it overwith. --AmericanHeroesMuseum (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)American Heroes Museum
 * You could try db-author enclosed in curly on the page - but don't blank it while AfD is in progress. Other people have edited apart from you, but their edits might be minor. db-author calls for speedy deletion by request of the only editor CSD G7.  There again, someone might call a speedy end here now. Good luck with the museum, anyway. (By the way, we are all volunteers too - I'm just off to bed after a long business trip.) Peridon (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Get some rest :) --AmericanHeroesMuseum (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The noble or humanitarian issues are not at stake here and the Vietnam  background is unfortunately not relevant.  Wiki  is an encyclopdia that is edited by  a community who  should  look up  the Five Pillars before starting. It's not  place for anyone to  breeze in, ignore a bunch  rules or guidelines, and write a one-off article about  their own favourite theme. I would have put a   tag on  it if I  had though it  stood a snowball's. When the museum has established itself, for example got  some funding from a notable source or public money, and it has been reported in  a newspaper on  on  the supporter's website, it  will  be the right time to  remake this article -  and then of course by  an  unattached third party. I already saw http://www.jetsettersmagazine.com/archive/jetezine/hotels/nv/laughlin/ramada/express.html when  I  was searching, and dismissed it  as being  a tourism  directory for  casinos, and not  appropriate as a source.--Kudpung (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny, I hadn't asked you your opinion. --AmericanHeroesMuseum (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to the primary author: Print sources are still sources. Your newspaper's archives do not need to be online for you to use them.  I appreciate that you might not have the time right now to devote to obtaining archived articles, but if you do I would encourage you to consider re-writing this article with more information.  If you decide later not to re-post it to WP, it may be useful to you for other purposes, including your own site. --Sainge.spin (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I added some references from reliable sources. The argument that the article is "unsalvageably tainted by conflict of interest" is invalid; Articles_for_deletion reminds us to "please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape." I am not 100% convinced that the references are enough to establish notability, but at least the article now has references and is closer to establishing notability than when it was nominated. - Eastmain (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank You I have been an avid reader of Wikipedia for years. I have learned so much about the world and people around me.  But it didn't prepare me for the self-deputized enforcers of Wiki County that seem to stride around on their virtual horses looking for handle bar moustaches.  Some of the late-comers to the debate have been delightfully helpful.  Even encouraging.  And I am convinced that, some day, this museum will be notable.  If not for its content and purpose, for the people it serves.  In spite of what the Wiki SA may think of my imperfect effort, my attempt to start an article was sincere.  It was never close to completion.  I am fully aware of that.  But may I suggest to those who swing one of those Five Pillars so happily that there is a human being on the other end.  Someone who may have a greater purpose than you.  And that we are not always aware of your air-tight world.  Thank you :) --AmericanHeroesMuseum (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * some day it probably will be notable; at that point, there should be an article. this can then be retrieved as a starting point--just ask me or any admin. It sometimes helps to get started writing articles by   picking topics which will be unquestionably notable, like any present or past  local members of the congress, or even the state legislature, that do not have articles here yet  DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DDG. Good advice.  Much appreciated. --AmericanHeroesMuseum (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.