Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grinnell Historical 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. Daniel (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grinnell Historical Museum[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NCORP Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to North Grinnell Historic District since the museum covers two counties, merger to one doesn't make sense. Valid search, and makes sense to include as the physical building is part of the historic district. Star Mississippi 13:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Keep I am the article author. Edits have been made to link this article to other Wikipedia articles that include publications and research done by the museum (Edith Renfrow Smith and Cornelia Clarke). Citation has also been added to the Grinnell Historical Museum collection in the Drake Community Library Archives. Grincitygal (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should encourage such GLAM activity and institutions rather than persecuting them. It seems easy to find coverage in sources such as the Iowa Journal of History and Iowa Off the Beaten Path and so it seems apparent that WP:BEFORE has not been done and policies such as WP:ATD and WP:NEXIST considered. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson. Sounds like there is scope for expansion. NemesisAT (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grincitygal, Andrew and NemesisAT. A well-written and fully-sourced historical topic with seven inline cites and two external links. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 July 2021 (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.