Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hopewell 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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopewell Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability for this museum.
I am also nominating the related page Hopewell Public Library for the same reason.
Artw (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is a little confusing as the Hopewell Museum and the Hopewell Public Library seem to be the same entity. Anyway, this museum is the subject of secondary sources [1][2] and even a piece in the New York Times. [3] I don't know about merging the two articles. --Oakshade (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not the same, a library and museum were chartered at the same time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep plenty of coverage in reliable media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not notable and not covered sufficiently. Times "piece" is an event listing from 1961, and the two other book mentions cited are insufficient to create an article. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reliable and verifiable sources about the subject in the article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So far I'm seeing the generic entry in the generic local guide as possibly useful in establishing WP:N, but not a lot else. The self-published second link certainly isn't any help, and as JohnnyB256 points out the times peice does not help either. Artw (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Arcadia Publishing publications are not self published. Nor are they associated in any way with the museum. Please argue with facts and not speculation. Please double check your spelling too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Second link. Work on your counting skills. Artw (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Arcadia Publishing publications are not self published. Nor are they associated in any way with the museum. Please argue with facts and not speculation. Please double check your spelling too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Its a notable location if it appears in Google news search 144 times. Dream Focus 09:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is abundant evidence of notability. I have added a citation to the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2009 (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.