Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Dora Museum of Speed


 * 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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Mount Dora Museum of Speed

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Local museum with no evidence of notability. Created by the blocked sock of a disruptive user, but it's been edited too much to qualify for G5. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * KEEP: I found many references to establish it as notable.Jllm06 (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment (duplicated at 4 AFDs). This is one of four AFDs with commonality that they were created by one editor no longer active, were prodded by the deletion nominator, had prod removed by me, and have similarity in nomination statements (e.g. reference in one to "prod removed on the absurd notion that 'museums are notable', again without evidence", is referring to others in series).  These are:
 * Articles for deletion/Mount Dora Museum of Speed
 * Articles for deletion/Coral Springs Museum of Art
 * Articles for deletion/Old Florida Museum
 * Articles for deletion/North Parish Church
 * Requirements for wp:MULTIAFD may or may not be met. It is NOT wp:CANVASSING to note the commonality (neutral, not to talk pages, not selective, transparent).  For efficiency, editors are invited to consider all four. -- do  ncr  am  19:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nominating all of them together would not have been a good idea, since they're potentially very different situations. The only commonality is that they were all created by a sockpuppet of a banned user, and that they all had their prods removed by you on an unsupported claim of notability.  Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep as with the Florida one, there seems to be enough sourcing there & that I found and will add that more than passes WP:ORG. Rather than going through four it might have been saner to do one test case to see if community agreed with your perceived "unsupported claim of notability" but I guess we'll see how they play out. StarM 00:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 18:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I added material to the article.  I don't particularly want to support the museum per se, as it turns out it is a for-profit venture that displays and sells classic cars, and probably does not have charitable nonprofit status, so calling it a "museum" is a stretch.  And it is not historic....it is a new building built in Art Deco style.  And I added a bit but don't particularly like the current version of the article.  But there are numerous tourist attractions listings of the museum in TripAdvisor and the like, mentioning it in "top 10" lists of attractions etc., and I think there is some merit to describing it as what it is, differentiating it from more traditional museums (e.g. the Mount Dora History Museum run by a historical society).  Numerous short sources exist.  Overall, better to keep.  Note the other 3 related AFDs headed towards solid Keeps I believe. -- do  ncr  am  11:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * delete commercial enterprise failing Wikipedia:CORP. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: redirect better than delete. I am almost indifferent about keep/delete, as i express in my "weak keep" vote above.  But there is some merit in having the museum properly described as what it is.  It is in fact one of the major attractions in its area;  people do go to it and they apparently pay $10 to visit it.  It does have some merit as a museum, albeit a private one partly serving a marketing purpose for the related classic cars company.  I am sure it is also partly quite legit, serving a combo educational and entertainment need.  There are lots of legitimate attractions/tours of for-profit places that are attractions, and I think this one is marginally okay, though I think views like Stuartyeates expressed are okay too.  But, Stuartyeates, wouldn't REDIRECT to List of museums in Florida museums]] (or MERGE & REDIRECT) be better than simply deletion?  Prior to this AFD, it was already included in the table there.  Adding some more sourced info to the table entry, copying over from the present article, clarifying that it is partly a commercial showroom would improve that table entry.  And redirecting preserves the edit history and access to the material, allows for recreation if/when more sources become available, and respects Wikipedia obligation/promise to credit contributors.  A wp:ANCHOR can be put in place at the table entry, so that a redirect can bring reader right to that entry. -- do  ncr  am  21:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Further, this link to anchored table row works to jump right to that entry, now, knock on wood. I am just testing instructions at Help:Table.  I still prefer Keeping the article, but redirect to table entry is also possible. -- do  ncr  am  22:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:37, 21 December 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.