Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Museum of Southern History

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Southern History

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

Non-notable museum. No independent refs. No claim of notability. Googling finds a handful of non-independent coverage but nothing independent with in depth coverage. PROD removed without improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you do a Google search for it. This is a very notable museum. Controversial. In the news frequently. Just needs to e expanded. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did that before nominating it for AfD. Google news gives me one hit for "Museum of Southern History", which is a 404 link. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Google News is no longer a useful metric of notability. See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 44#Google news archive search? and Template talk:Find sources#Google News search is completely useless. Here is one news story about this entity: "Historical accuracy is the thrust of Museum of Southern History, curators say", Florida Times-Union, August 14, 2009. Having looked through some pages of Google results, I am on the fence about whether there's enough coverage in evidence or not. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Google search and google news have never been a particularly useful metric of notability, but they're part of my good-faith test before nominating things I've never heard of before to AfD. Is there anything better that I should use instead? (b) The link above makes me think WP:FRINGE (I know very little about american history from this period). Stuartyeates (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A museum honoring the history of the Antebellum and Confederate south is controversial. The museum itself has been covered and they are often involved in issues related to controversial statues and buildings named for confederate "heros". It's a pretty interesting subject actually. Coverage here, here and here for example. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The about.com link is junk and all the other links are jacksonville.com links, suggests local interest only, to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every online hit is passing mention or promotional. Doesn't have reliable sources or evidence of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the entire articles about it listed above, it's also discussed in book sources here and here, as well as for its genealogy resources (library) here. Plenty of coverage. Covered as a major attraction in Jacksonville as well as being noted in sources for the sometimes controversial diputes over SOuthern history and figures. Also covered in the Florida Encyclopedia here. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Candleabracadabra, who has demonstrated that multiple, substantial, independently-published sources exist, and therefore that this topic meets GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is always difficult. To judge whether a subject is notable when the article is still only a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2014 (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.