Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul W. Bryant 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul W. Bryant Museum

Paul W. Bryant Museum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article is not properly referenced. Also I would say it is violation of WP:NPOV and possibly WP:COI. --Random Say it here! 21:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep There is no reason to delete this page as a cleanup and referencing is all that is needed. I have already begun the work but someone had previously removed the AFD tag. I am asking an admin to re-add the template without dumping the changes I have made. I'm not sure it can be easily done without wrecking this page. The WP:COI is a problem but in itself not a reason to delete. POV is being removed. JodyB talk 23:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with JodyB. — Athaenara ✉ 23:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless independent sources are provided. One Night In Hackney303 23:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Uncertain about the general notability of university museums. DGG 23:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep In general I would follow DGG's opinion on the subject matter. If the museum in fact has an original painting in their exhibition that was used to create a postage stamp, for me enough notability would be established in this case to argue in favor of keeping the article. Maybe an image (of the stamp, the painting or both) can be added to illustrate the connection. doxTxob \ talk 00:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Why should we hold university museums to a different standard? If we can supply multiple, non-trivial sources which are verifiable shouldn't that be enough? JodyB talk 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. In addition to the tuscaloosa news article, there's Huntsville Times coverage & it is referred to by journalists outside of Alabama [1] (though many are pay-per-read or subscriber only). --Karnesky 00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to University of Alabama. Corvus cornix 00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the Tuscaloosa News article and the others provided by Karnesky. There's too much subject-specific content here to merge to another article. --Oakshade 01:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per jody b and other keeps above. All seem to cover most important aspects of afd. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep in agreement with JodyB. Acalamari 16:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep couldn't agree more with JodyB on this one. Remember folks, AfD is not the first step. The museum is notable, and if properly sourced, meets all requirements for inclusion. - auburnpilot talk 20:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Jody. And to re-iterate what AuburnPilot said, AfD should not be the first step. If a stubby article needs some tagging, cleanup, or POV revision, then fix it or tag it. When its such an obvious keep, then nom for AfD is a waste of time. —Gaff ταλκ 22:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Let me temper my comments by making note that the article has been extensively reworked since the AfD nom. If I had seen it then, I probably would have nominated it for AfD myself...—Gaff ταλκ 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree. It was a mess and was a POV nightmare. It was so bad I almost picked up the phone and called the museum ans asked what they thought they were doing! Anyway, we've made some progress on the article and I sure appreciate everyone's work. JodyB talk 23:05, 30 May 2007 (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.