Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military Museum of North Florida


 * 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   speedy delete. G12: copyvio. Duplication Detector confirms it (and shows where a few words were changed, such as from plural to non, to try to hide the cut and pasting). No prejudice against a legitimate recreation. The Bushranger One ping only 13:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Military Museum of North Florida

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

does not meet the notability guidelines for organizations, reads like a brochure for the museum, looks like a cut and paste from http://www.militarymuseumofnorthflorida.com/mission.htm.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not the biggest-time operation, but I think it's a legitimately notable museum based on substantial coverage over a period of years, and it deserves cleanup rather than deletion.  I've added some sources to the article, and reduced the promotional tone of some of the text. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete the old version because of copyright issues, we can't have that on the history period. Notable museum however so if Arxiloxos can do a complete rewrite that removes all traces of the copyvio, I'll support keeping. Secret account 17:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Although the nominator mentioned cut-and-paste, I didn't understand that to be the main thrust of the nomination, and the article was neither tagged as a copyright violation nor marked for speedy deletion. If you find that it warrants deletion on that ground, please do so. I've struck my !vote.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2014 (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.