Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water Fuel Museum (2nd nomination)


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Water Fuel Museum
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

A 2400 square foot museum that was only open from 2005-06, whose website is now bereft of life, and which has a grand total of either four or five mentions in reliable sources, all local newspapers, simply does not meet notability requirements. In particular, the fact that it received a few mentions in local newspapers does not confer notability. If it were a local restaurant with a few mentions and even a story or two devoted to it, would it have a Wikipedia article? No. And this shouldn't either. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I congratulate the nominator on their persistence, having waiting all this time since their first nomination in 2008. As we're still waiting for their explanation of that nomination, can they please point to the policy that explains why local sources don't count for notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because then every two-bit local diner that was open for a year would have a Wikipedia article. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This veiled attempt to hide important historical information from public view isn't about "notability." It is about suppressing information relating to a suppressed non-conventional alternative energy technology: namely, the possibilities of turning water into fuel. Shame on those responsible for such censorship! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.190.46.10 (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC) 
 * Delete - Not seeing evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. A few passing mentions in local newspapers does not a notable topic make. Yilloslime T C  01:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH having "attention solely from local media" and some of the sources are for "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" for articles that are not about this museum. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. The first AFD was a "clean keep" so more discussion is needed to determine if consensus really has changed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For example "Keep meets WP:N. I'm unaware of anything in WP:N that limits us from using local sources. Hobit (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)" The current version of CORPDEPTH excludes such sources. I think someone said somewhere that such exclusions were put in to prevent your average local eatery from having a Wikipedia article based on local newspaper coverage. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Some users from the previous AfD have since been banned for abusing multiple accounts, e.g. User:Ecoleetage. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not "some users", only one - so the previous AFD result is valid. I can't find significant coverage as suggested there - maybe some news sources have been removed from Google news, of maybe there was not as much as was implied. The "CORPDEPTH" rationale contradicts the general notability guideline, and both are equal, as guidelines, so both views are acceptable (as well as anything in between) - however it seems that there is only one item of significant coverage cited in the article, it is from a local source, and as the museum closed soon after opening it is unlikely to have been the subject of coverage over a long period of time - one piece of coverage from a local newspaper isn't sufficient for an article, so unless more can be found the article should be deleted (or merged and redirected, if a suitable target can be found). Peter E. James (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * List of water fuel inventions was created by splitting a section from Water Fuel Museum, so if the article is deleted the history from before the split would still be needed. Peter E. James (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete 9 gnews hits but most of these are small mentions. fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2011 (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.