Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monterey Bay Botanical Garden


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Monterey Bay Botanical Garden

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is about a proposed botanical garden that, from all indications, doesn't exist except as a website. No actual location for the garden is specified. Such a proposed project might still be notable if it were being written about in independent sources, but no such sources are supplied, and my own searches found absolutely nothing. The only sources in the article are the project's own website, a directory listing for the company's office address, a couple of websites for gardens in Hawaii, and a page from the Monterey Bay Aquarium website that has nothing to do with this purported botanical garden. This article was deprodded by its creator; I then posted on the creator's page asking for independent sources, but none have been added. Based on all this, I'd say the subject fails the notability test, and WP:CRYSTAL applies as well. Arxiloxos (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  —Arxiloxos (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - CRYSTAL ball gazing. MBBG has a bare website listing the future plants of the future garden. TOOSOON. No RS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The botanical garden land is currently in agricultural production (primarily strawberries), and adding the other plants will not commence until finalization of the land transfer ownership. This is not being publicly discussed due to financial concerns. There are presently no newspaper articles about this developing project, but it is anticipated that there will soon be. In particular, Letters of Interest in the project have been obtained from government officials, and will soon be made available on the mbbg website.

While you certainly don't have the same Crystal Ball that I have, it should be evident that the promoter of this developing project is the same promoter of the project that was developed previously, and for which a Wikipedia article already exists at World Botanical Gardens. That is a good indication that the project will happen. Wikipedia Crystal ball gazing does not require that proposed projects actually be in existence before they may be written about. Rather, they require good evidence that they will likely come to fruition. The fact of the extensive webpage, land in negotiation, and a track record of success in developing botanical gardens should be sufficient evidence of the likelihood of the project. As newsmedia reports are developed in the near future, the article will be amended/updated to add those references.

Oldnoah (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Oldnoah Note: User Oldnoah is the author of the article in question. MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete too soon, perhaps this will meet WP:N once it's futher along but right now it's far too soon. There is a serious lack of evidence of notability here. There are zero google news hits on the title. RadioFan (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The article consists of nothing but predictions, hope, hype, and unrelated info about the developer's other projects. All references are self-referential. At this point the developer doesn't even own the land. As the article's author admits, there has been no newspaper publicity about this proposed botanical garden; the lack of such publicity is an automatic disqualifier from Wikipedia's perspective. If it actually comes into being and does all the marvelous things it says it is going to do, it will clearly be notable; there will be newspaper coverage about its grand opening and travel-literature reviews of it, and a sourced article can be created then. There might even be such publicity as it takes shape, before it actually opens. But at this point it is simply an idea, and no Reliable Source has chosen to write about it. I am impressed by the idea and the developer's dreams, and I look forward to visiting it if it opens within my lifetime, but Wikipedia requires more solid information.  MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2012 (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.