Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood Erotic 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator in this edit. Star  Mississippi  12:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hollywood Erotic Museum

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I would like to propose deletion of the Hollywood Erotic Museum. It has no citations, and doesn't have enough material/sources to have an article. It has not been worked on in nearly three years, and other than being a poor quality marketing advert stub to a long gone business it provides little content or context on the museum. It is listed in under Defunct museums on the List of museums in California and that may be all that is needed. Myotus (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator. Improvements by have helped the article a great deal and it should be able to exist as a Stub. Hopefully others will continue to improve the article. Myotus (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as the Observer and LA Times, which I added, probably are enough meet WP:ORG and/or GNG. I wouldn't be against a merge if consensus develops that those two don't meet WP:ORG Star   Mississippi  02:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The mention of the item in List of museums in California is simply a link to the article.  If the article is gone, that is no good.  Perhaps the nominator would prefer a merger?  Then a merge proposal would have been better than an AFD. However, the content in the article is more substantial than material for any item at that list article.  Better to keep.   There is excellent essay wp:ITSAMUSEUM (to which i contributed), too. --Doncram (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2021 (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.