Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sign Museum

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

American Sign Museum

American Sign Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Unreferenced stub on a museum. Contains little information and does not assert its importance and notability. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 21:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Seems notable enough; received media coverage in Los Angeles, New York, Kansas City, etc. Zagalejo^^^ 22:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody try to expand this article then. I am not convinced.I cannot find any decent information that would make this a half decent article and I seriously doubt that it is really that notable. Yes those sources mention the museum but the bulk of the content actually about the museum seems very sparse... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 23:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

AFD is not an expand-on-demand service. I might get to the article eventually, since I do find the subject interesting, but it's not a priority for me. The links I included above aren't the only sources; there's plenty more to be found through the links that were automatically generated at the top of the discussion. Like this. I'm confident that someone could write at least a few paragraphs about this place.

Aren't you the guy responsible for thousands of short geography stubs? What led you to single out this article? Zagalejo^^^ 23:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? I've also contributed significantly to over 10 featured articles, over 40 GAs, have expanded many articles on museums and done more towards expanding/cleaning up articles than most people have ever done on this site. I have AFDs thrown at me by people who do nothing for this project, I have as much right as anybody to nominate articles I think are lackking in the notability/sources department. Its rather ignorant for you to even claim that. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 00:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said anything bad about your contributions; I would (and have) defended them at AFD. I just thought it was a little odd that someone like you would be demanding others to expand an article. You always seemed like someone who was willing to stand up for stubs as the seeds that make the project grow.

I still don't understand what kinds of sources you are looking for. Here's a full-length article from USA Today. That's in addition to everything else that's been mentioned. How much do you want? Zagalejo^^^ 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Great article, by the way! Good find.Thomsonsr (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Give me the weekend and I will beef it up. I won't have a legit hometown museum deleted from Wikipedia if I can help it.Thomsonsr (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Unlike with many museums, I couldn't find any solid sources which actually said much about the actual displays and content of the museum. For many museums, especially in the United States, there is usually a lot of info online which is more than enough to write a full detailed article. Howeber for this museum I only saw it briefly mentioned in some articles without the substantial coverage I'd expect of a notable museum. You know tons of photographs and detailed information on the artifacts. If these sources do exist which provide detailed knowledhe of the exhibits and functioning of the museum I apologise but I could not find them and as such I have doubts about whether its content is really of note. That US Today source at least has some scraps of info on displays and 6 photographs. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 02:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. I contacted the museum via Twitter to get permission to use photos from their website and blog. Both have been updated recently. As far as notability, the museum is moving to a larger location, has 3,800 objects cataloged and is the ONLY public sign museum in the United States. A local business, Neonworks of Cincinnati, moved its operations into the museum as part of a live exhibit also. That info came from a recent news report by local TV station FOX 19: here. Give me a little bit of time and I'll try to help this not-for-profit 501(C)(3) corporation get a proper Wiki page. If anything, we need more museums on Wikipedia.Thomsonsr (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually while articles require independent third-party sources, contacting museums or indeed any institution to request information and photographs is an excellent idea. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 13:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, Thomsonsr and I have done some expanding. I think the article is shaping up pretty well. Zagalejo^^^ 20:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, you've proved me wrong in finding those sources on what looked otherwise like a local museum of dubious notability. I hope you continue to expand it and get hold of some pictures, you could visit the museum yourself Thompson and take some pics and you could new propose this for DYK nom. Excellent work. Nomination withdrawn, a non involved party can close this. This article now clearly asserts notability. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 21:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Setting aside the comments above, this museum has been the subject of (yes, not just discussed in) articles in USA Today and the Los Angeles Times. I cannot imagine, nor is there above, an argument that it lacks basic notability. This one borders on a speedy keep.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Sorry, Himalayan, but this one meets WP:CORP and WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep As ‡ Himalayan ‡ said "Excellent work". It will be even nicer when Thomsonsr can get those pictures in. --Bejnar (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You are free to close this Bejnar as a nomination withdrawn. I do hope Thompson does expand this further as he said though. I'm off to bed. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 02:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

All signs point to keep! Nighty, night. Lugnuts (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2010 (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.