- 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. j⚛e decker talk 00:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Martial Arts History Museum
- Martial Arts History Museum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Has a single reference of questionable significance. Most content is unreferenced, and there is a strong promotional streak running through the text. LukeSurl t c 13:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep. This museum has actually received coverage in multiple reliable sources: Los Angeles Times [1]; KNBC [2] (video); Los Angeles Daily News [3] (reprinted at SFGate.com [4]), [5]. My !vote is a little "weak" because (1) the nominator is right about the excessively promotional and puffery-laden tone of the article, which does set off an alarm bell and at minimum needs to be cleaned up; and (2) there doesn't seem to have been much coverage since the 2011 reopening in Burbank, although it does get some other mentions [6] [7] [8]. On balance I'm inclined to keep this assuming we can strip it down to NPOV factual content. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 19:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a museum, open to the public. If the article is promotional, it should be edited, not deleted. -- do ncr am 01:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure of my vote yet - but the question is it notable not if it is open, Museum's are not inherintly notable. The sources may be nothing more than local interest coverage but should be at least put in the article. Peter Rehse ( talk) 07:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- It would be better if more of the above references could be integrated into the article but generally they are about local interest rather than the notability of the museum. My vote would be Weak delete on notability grounds. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep It's notable enough to try and salvage it. It might be worth a rewrite using a NPOV. If that doesn't work, it might be time to either delete or WP:TNT. I'd try a general rewrite first, removing all of the promotional content and stripping it down to encyclopedic and verifiable info QueenFan ( talk) 20:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It appears WP:BEFORE reveals coverage from some major reliable sources. Everything else such as a lack of references, tone, and due weight are all WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. Mkdw talk 18:54, 30 April 2014 (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.
- 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. j⚛e decker talk 00:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Martial Arts History Museum
- Martial Arts History Museum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Has a single reference of questionable significance. Most content is unreferenced, and there is a strong promotional streak running through the text. LukeSurl t c 13:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep. This museum has actually received coverage in multiple reliable sources: Los Angeles Times [1]; KNBC [2] (video); Los Angeles Daily News [3] (reprinted at SFGate.com [4]), [5]. My !vote is a little "weak" because (1) the nominator is right about the excessively promotional and puffery-laden tone of the article, which does set off an alarm bell and at minimum needs to be cleaned up; and (2) there doesn't seem to have been much coverage since the 2011 reopening in Burbank, although it does get some other mentions [6] [7] [8]. On balance I'm inclined to keep this assuming we can strip it down to NPOV factual content. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 19:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a museum, open to the public. If the article is promotional, it should be edited, not deleted. -- do ncr am 01:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure of my vote yet - but the question is it notable not if it is open, Museum's are not inherintly notable. The sources may be nothing more than local interest coverage but should be at least put in the article. Peter Rehse ( talk) 07:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- It would be better if more of the above references could be integrated into the article but generally they are about local interest rather than the notability of the museum. My vote would be Weak delete on notability grounds. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep It's notable enough to try and salvage it. It might be worth a rewrite using a NPOV. If that doesn't work, it might be time to either delete or WP:TNT. I'd try a general rewrite first, removing all of the promotional content and stripping it down to encyclopedic and verifiable info QueenFan ( talk) 20:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It appears WP:BEFORE reveals coverage from some major reliable sources. Everything else such as a lack of references, tone, and due weight are all WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. Mkdw talk 18:54, 30 April 2014 (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.