Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guggenheim Guadalajara

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 merge to Solomon_R._Guggenheim_Foundation. The fundamental consensus here is that this subject is not notable enough to merit a stand-alone article. Merge whatever content seems worthwhile into the main article, and redirect to there. Exactly which bits are worth merging seems like a content question which would best be discussed on Talk:Solomon_R._Guggenheim_Foundation -- RoySmith (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guggenheim Guadalajara

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a museum construction project that was considered, but ultimately not pursued, and was abandoned in 2009. A feasibility study was made, but the museum never committed to construction. The proposal and its cancellation are old news and not of any encyclopedic interest, as large institutions routinely propose but ultimately reject some of their proposed projects. Note that the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, after describing its projects that have been completed, includes this sentence: "Other projects in Rio de Janeiro, Vilnius, Salzburg, Guadalajara and Taichung were also considered but not completed." -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "he proposal and its cancellation are old news and not of any encyclopedic interest," Notability is not temporary. The planned museum as well as that in Abu Dhabi were well documented in reliable sources. The article issues can be addressed with cleanup, not deletion. As an aside, thee was extended content in the Foundation page, which Ssilvers has already removed. While consensus can change, I'm not sure it has been established that the content isn't notable. StarM 02:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Guggenheim Abu Dhabi is an entirely different situation: it is under construction. The Guadalajara site was merely a proposal where construction never began, and it was ultimately abandoned. It was of interest when there was a possibility that it might be built, but once it was cancelled, I would suggest, it was of no continuing encyclopedic interest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a project that never got off the ground and of little encyclopaedic value Jack1956 (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Why do we have an article on project that was never substantiated? As per Jack1956, this offers very little to the reader and should be deleted. Cassianto ^talk 22:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 05:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very important to the history of the Guggenheim's history worldwide(proposals and architects and art, political and financial crossovers)Masterknighted (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Let us try one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation#Later activities where the project is given an extremely brief and appropriate mention. Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Yes, a redirect there is a good idea. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2014 (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.