Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plains Art 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. I'm closing this early. The nom was for the article in its first state and has now been withdrawn after the article has been revised. Deletes were for the earlier version. Since the revision, there's unanimous keep. Tyrenius 07:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plains Art Museum

Plains Art Museum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Have tagged for speedy twice and creator refuses to discuss and will not follow the standard {{hangon}} procedure for contesting speedy deletion, and feel they'd just remove a prod. So we'll do it with an AFD to smooth matters out. Article reads like an advert, stressing the various features (in specific numbers) and does not make any assertion of real notability. Furthermore (as I just noticed) there is quite the conflict of interest as the creating users username is identical to the article's name. DoomsDay349 21:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Postscript: Cleanup begun, {{db-spam}} removed. — Athaenara ✉ 01:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I'm actually liking the cleanup performed on this article. Given the current status, I think I may withdraw the nomination. Is saying so sufficient or is there another avenue I must go down? DoomsDay349 01:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, DoomsDay349. I was amazed again at how little I know until I start trying to track down references for something I've never heard of! — Athaenara ✉ 01:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
My original problem was spammishness and it's definitely beyond that now, so I'm all for keeping and expanding. DoomsDay349 01:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I think the present version of the article warrants withdrawing the proposed deletion. --MatthewUND(talk) 02:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    I mentioned above that I will gladly withdraw the deletion nomination in light of recent changes (in this sort of situation, in fact, I'm much more happy to have seen the article cleaned rather than deleted). So if this can be speedy closed under grounds of my withdrawing the nomination, then let it be done. Thanks to everyone who worked on cleaning it! DoomsDay349 03:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as it seems (1) notable and (2) is being cleanuped up. The process is working. Bearian 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - notability and advertising-like concerns have been addressed in this rewrite. As an aside, I think it would have been more productive to work with the creator of the article to achieve an NPOV, well-written article than to simply tag it as spam. A non-profit arts organization isn't seeking commercial gain, after all. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is in the AAM (Am. Assoc of Museums) which most US small museums are not (allowed into), & has serious touring exhibitions, as well as its permanent collection. This should have been listed on the visual-arts related list. It's the only arts museum in North Dakota, darn it! Johnbod 22:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Not true. The North Dakota Museum of Art has been around longer in North Dakota than the Plains Art Museum and is the official art museum of the state. --MatthewUND(talk) 05:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod 22:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Johnbod. --sparkitTALK 23:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Weatherman90 03:23, 2 June 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.