Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-36 Peacemaker Museum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. However, given this 'museums' ephemeral existence, probably a redirect-and-mention somewhere else is all that is really need. -Splash - tk 23:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the B-36 that was the whole reason for this museum's existence has been transferred to the Pima Air & Space Museum, this institution is no longer notable rogerd 14:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The museum was notable in the past of the conservation of the B-36. The fact that the aircraft has been transferred and the museum is shutting down simply makes this an historical entry. After all, Napolean Bonaparte is dead, but we've still got an article about him. -- Whpq 14:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be argumentative, but there is a big difference between Napolean Bonaparte and an obscure museum in Texas that only exists on the internet, has never been opened and gave away its primary artifact that it was founded to restore. --rogerd 16:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it was a bit of exaggeration, but the point I was trying to make is that if the museum previously met the criteria for notability, then it's notable. Period. The primary reason for its existence has been transferred, but its notablitity doesn't change. It's just historic. Encyclopedia articles are not rooted in the present. -- Whpq 17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, based on its website it appears to still be an active museum, but even if it isn't, the article should be kept as a historical entry per Whpg. Accurizer 01:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; given that the museum never actually did restore the aircraft, there's not much to say here. Also, although I agree with the 'once notable, always [or at least for a long time] notable' paradigm, I'm not convinced this article was notable to begin with. Vectro 00:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.