Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikola Tesla Memorial Center

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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Tesla Memorial Center

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG.
Nikola Tesla was one of the world's foremost electrical researchers and inventors, but notability is not inherited, and I can find no evidence that this museum has any significant independent coverage in reliable sources. (e.g. Gbooks just throws up pasing mentions). The existing sources are externals links to the museum's own website and other tourism sites (which are not reliable sources, and probably not independent).
The article's creator is a new editor @Silverije, who wrote[1] in a discussion on my talk that the most important fact is that the Memorial Center exists and operates. However, that is clearly not the basis of WP:Notability. Many things in this world exist, but do not meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.
It may be helpful to redirect this page to Nikola Tesla, but I see no reliably-sourced content worth merging. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs a rewrite since it fails WP:PROMO as it stands and probably WP:NOTTRAVEL as well, but it also passes WP:GNG. I found these articles very quickly: [2] [3] [4]. Clear keep. SportingFlyer T·C 21:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the article, it's essentially a museum, and the references are sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references cited by SportingFlyer. MidwestSalamander (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has sufficient sources.TH1980 (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. wp:ITSAMUSEUM. --Doncram (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, but a merge to Smiljan should be considered when you think about it. wumbolo ^^^ 12:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you to User:SportingFlyer and to User:Silverije for improving the article. But wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP, and, User:BrownHairedGirl I think this was a bad nomination. Museums basically are going to be notable, and wp:BEFORE. --Doncram (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram: a) I did not make this nomination for cleanup, b) I did WP:BEFORE, unsuccessfully, c) there is no guideline suggesting automatic notability for museums ... and the essay WP:ITSAMUSEUM is circular-logic childish drivel which should be deleted. (I just went to see who wrote that nonsense, and no surprise, it's a Doncram creation)..

If the sources added do establish notability, then fine. But before they were added, it was just a travel brochure, not an encyclopedia article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for this. It's notable, but the article needed a decent amount of cleanup to get out of the WP:PROMO sphere. SportingFlyer T·C 00:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though "Nikola Tesla Memorial Center" is not the most fruitful of search terms, the museum easily passes GNG in Croatian-language sources. PROMO et alia don't affect notability, and even if I were a fan of WP:TNT, the article is (in its current form) in no way in need of a complete rewrite. Daß Wölf 00:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC) BTW regarding the article creator being a new editor, a look at the contribs page shows Silverije has been around since 2009 :)[reply]
Keep. WP:ITSAMUSEUM - and yes museums tend to be inherently notable (as they get written about by media, travel books, and other books - as institutions open for public display, they tend to be covered). ESSAY arguments aside - SportingFlyer's sources demonstrate GNG (which is what matters). Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll go with WP:ITSAMUSEUM too. I see no value whatsoever in deleting pages on significant museums and historic sites like this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks good with current rewrite. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2019 (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.