Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliott 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 keep. "unsourced" is not the same as "unsourceable" Firsfron of Ronchester 21:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Museum[edit]

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

The article has only two citations - both reference the subject's own website - thus it fails to demonstrate notability. Roger (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put 4 proposed sources on the talk page for the article, including a search which turns up quite a few mentions on the local newspaper (tcpalm.com). I'll try to put those as references into the article for this weekend if no one else does. I agree in its current form it may not meet notability, but I'll have to see how it is by the end of the period. So count me as currently undecided.Naraht (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "needs more or better references" is not a valid reason for deletion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty of sources that just need to be added to the article. Unsourced doesn't mean unsourcable StarM 00:40, 1 November 2012 (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.