Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bunny 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 keep per WP:SNOW and agreement of nominator below. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bunny Museum

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article is being treated as a means of self-promotion despite having been warned about being a COI editor. User page is also promo ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 22:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * - keep - I think the bunny article is nice and cited and was created by my friend. I like the pics also and the content detail. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite the wording of this person's comment, his edit history indicates that he is not an SPA. I would advise him to avoid the appearance of being a canvassed voter however. Sven Manguard  Talk  23:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. While WP:COI is certainly cause for concern, it is not an automatic criteria for deletion. While Candace Frazee may have been a major contributor to the article, I see several other people have contributed in major ways to it who have no discernible connection to the museum. I'm also finding plenty of third party coverage, including . And that's just three pages into the more reliable of the Ghits. I see no reason to delete. If you feel it is promotional, improve it to make it less so. I personally don't see anything inherently promotional about the article. Redfarmer (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Look again. ⋙–Berean–Hun<b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 23:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, then, revert her if she continues and report her to AIV if she continues after being warned. AfD is not the venue to be fighting this battle. Redfarmer (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * According to WP:PGL, it is. WP:Promotion is clearly listed as causation for deletion. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 23:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not if the promotion is only a small portion of the article that would not merit a significant rewrite, and other editors have actively edited the article. The instance you cited was one sentence that could be and was easily reverted. If it was truly promotional in nature, it could be speedied. This could not be. As I said, you're pursing entirely the wrong venue to take care of this problem. Redfarmer (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I up and removed the useless and irrelivent About the Owners section, which drastically improved the quality of the article. Being that this museum is recognized as a Guniess record holder, it meets notability requirements, and now without that "fluff" section on the onwers, I see no major problems with the article. Sven Manguard  <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em"><b style="color:black;">Talk</b>  23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I added a number of references to the article and helped re-write it. It seems to me that the subject is perfectly notable and has coverage spanning the ten+ years that the museum had been active. Silver  seren C 00:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep COI is not a fatal poison to the existence of an article, so that is not a strong reason for deletion. User page is irrelevant to AfD discussion. Leaving, alas, no solid rationale for deletion. Collect (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: As article writer I feel this is sourced and would like to make it very clear I have no connection with this subject matter other then adding the article. It passes general notability guidelines. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Doesn't hit any of the criteria for deletion. In particular, while the article may have been created for advertising, it does include relevant and useful content. me_and 09:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Seems notable enough, and seems very well cited. I do not see any good arguments for deletion offered. --Stroller (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can we close this discussion per WP:SNOW? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meand (talk • contribs) 11:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 12:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Hahaha!!! Now that's quirky.  I definitely want to go there, shame I don't live in California.  (By the way that's a keep comment) --  role <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:#9ACD32">player 13:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * keep the COI concerns over content are dealt with, and beyond that it looks fine and easily notable enough.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 13:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - COI isn't a reason for deletion, this article clearly passes WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as article has reliable sources to pass GNG. COI is not a valid argument for deletion. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  16:39, 12 October 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.