Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Center, New Mexico


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 07:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Center, New Mexico

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Contested prod. No assertion that this press release collection is notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and announcements of someone planning to build something someday are of interest to the local chambers of commerce but should have more foundations (literally as well as metaphorically) before becomning an encyclopedia article. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 14:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 14:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Popular Mechanics and POPSCI sources are not press releases. You could try sourcing the parts of the article that are sourced to press releases to ', the ',, or  instead. Uncle G (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no, they aren't press releases...they are somebody rewriting a press release. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you determine that something is a re-written press release? Even if it were, why would Popular Science, NY Times or the Boston Globe bother picking up something that wasn't notable? --George100 (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's plenty of independent news coverage about this now. e.g. .  By the way, based on what I've read, I'm inclined to favor renaming the article to the more informative Center for Innovation, Testing and Evaluation. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to pass GNG. Sarah (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It may turn out to be a scam, or vaporware, but it has enough press to be notable. --John Nagle (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - This topic passes WP:GNG:
 * Popular Science – New Mexico Building a 20-Square-Mile Empty City in Which to Test Renewable Energy
 * Popular Mechanics – Why Is a Tech Company Building a Ghost Town in New Mexico?
 * The Register – Inside the Skynet ghost town built by bunker-based boffins
 * The Washington Post – Mayor: New Mexico city on ‘world stage’ after being chosen as site for scientific ghost town
 * Also, none of these sources are press releases; they're published articles from reliable sources. — Northamerica1000(talk) 01:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep notability clearly demonstrated by refs. --Kvng (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Clearly notable. WP:CRYSTAL refers to speculation and rumor. The location has been chosen, and building is scheduled to start next month.  --George100 (talk) 04:34, 22 May 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.