Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood Motion Picture and Television 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 speedy keep. There seems to be enough coverage about this museum and it's collection so I am withdrawing my nomination. (non-admin closure) JayJayWhat did I do? 17:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can't find any evidence that this museum ever opened or is still planning to open. Seems like a non-notable failed museum. According to the Online Archive of California it says "The Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum, commonly known as the Hollywood Museum, was planned from 1960 to 1965 but was never built." Sources listed in the article mention another museum, the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures not this one.

I don't think this is related to Debbie Reynolds project either as some of those showed up in my search, I believe this was a separate project in the 1960's. Her organization began in 1972 according to CNN. Although I see some Gbook hits, I can't preview most of them. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. JayJay<sup style="color:black">What did I do?  02:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. <b style="color:#FF0000">Jay</b><b style="color:#0000FF">Jay</b><sup style="color:black">What did I do?  02:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. <b style="color:#FF0000">Jay</b><b style="color:#0000FF">Jay</b><sup style="color:black">What did I do?  02:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, or actually this should probably be closed "Speedy Keep", as the deletion nomination provides no argument, no rationale at all, for deletion.
 * The article should be updated, of course, to explain the project as a proposal which was planned to open in 2017, rather than speaking in Wikipedia's voice that the museum "will" open in 2017, etc. Put a negative tag on the article, fine.  But the New York Times Los Angeles Times article alone is a very substantial source establishing a huge, significant project, and there will exist other sources.  It's not especially relevant that this is or is not associated with some Debbie Reynolds project (but maybe that project deserves an article too, and should be linked.)  And I am myself curious what happened, why it was delayed, whether the project still has huge backers, whether it has $30 or $200 million socked away, etc., or whatever other story can be told.  But for AFD purposes, it doesn't matter that the project has not happened (yet) or that it has completely failed and dissolved and returned all the donations (if that is what has happened).  The proposal was significant and is supported in sources and "notability is not temporary".
 * See Articles for deletion/Sparta Teapot Museum (which garnered unanimous "Keep" votes) for perspective, about another failed museum project, about which it is fine and good that Wikipedia covers the topic.
 * JayJay, could you just withdraw this AFD so it can be closed without requiring further participation? It seems to be a misunderstanding that Wikipedia can only cover "winners" not "losers", when in the real world I think the "losers" can be far more interesting and important. --Doncram (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, a museum project at Fairfax Ave. & Wilshire Boulevard, would be a huge deal, putting it in a row with LACMA and the La Brea tarpits museum and the Folk Museum and the cars museum (and perhaps more of List of museums in Los Angeles). The proposal/expectation this would happen at that prominent location speaks to the significance of this project.  It sounds like a great idea, to me, too. --Doncram (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment/question: Is this what became the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures (which was first covered in 2008 in Wikipedia as " Museum of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences", when it was just a plan? This project is located at corner of Wilshire Blvd and Fairfax Ave in the May Company Building (Wilshire, Los Angeles) (1939 built), and is currently scheduled to open in 2021, after many delays  If this is the same thing, then it would obviously be appropriate to merge the AFD subject article (created in 2015), into that article, perhaps into a section titled "Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum" to cover the phase of the planning period when it had that proposed name.  Without any AFD, a merger proposal can be put into place on the two articles, calling for informed editors to implement an intelligent merger.  IMO, whether or not this is the same project, this AFD should be closed "Keep" or "Speedy Keep". --Doncram (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm all ears for keeping or merging this article if you can show me sources that this building or proposed building is notable but I can't find any sources to suggest so and you haven't shown me any either. I don't know if this is the same project, it sounds like something completely different especially given that sources in the article refer to the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures but don't mention anywhere this museum name and I have no idea what New York Times article you are referring to. This museum does not currently exist, never existed, and as far as I can tell is not planning to open and I have edited to reflect the article to reflect that because it is otherwise misleading. Unlike Sparta Teapot Museum there is no significant coverage of the proposed building to make this notable as far as I can tell. The sole source of the article is actually copied from this postcard. <b style="color:#FF0000">Jay</b><b style="color:#0000FF">Jay</b><sup style="color:black">What did I do? 04:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah right. The postcard is the only source remaining in the article, after you just deleted references to two substantial Los Angeles Times articles!!!!
 * This one of the LA Times articles is the article I was considering to be the main source of the article, and which I referred to mistakenly as the "New York Times" article. It is very substantial, explains the project is at Beverly & Fairfax, and by that fact I am pretty sure it is referring to the project located there and opening in 2021.
 * JayJay, I have the impression you're a good editor, and would not be intending to pull a fast one, but it is absolutely not okay for a deletion nominator to delete substantial content and sources from an article, just before or during an AFD process. I suggest/request you revert your edit(s) stripping down the article, so it is easier for others to evaluate the article as it was before you arrived. --Doncram (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you read the articles? Nowhere in them do they mention "Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum" they mention the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures or rather "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences" plans for a museum at Beverly & Fairfax and the current article says the proposed site is to be across from the Hollywood Bowl on Highland Ave, which is now a parking lot and makes me believe this was a different project. Why should the sources be kept if they do not refer to the article in question and there are no other sources to prove otherwise. It is misleading to keep them in the article. <b style="color:#FF0000">Jay</b><b style="color:#0000FF">Jay</b><sup style="color:black">What did I do? 06:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, i read, and the article would require revision, if there was an editor informed and interested in improving it. Actually I ignored the postcard source at first because it was indicated to be a postcard (and I think it is undated), and I went to the first substantial source, the first LA Times article. If the actual true facts are that there was a Debbie Reynolds-associated proposal long preceding the project now nearing opening, then that probably should be indicated in the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures article, and the AFD subject could be pointed to an anchor set there.  It is a true actual non-fake fact that it is hard to open a new major museum, and it takes a long time, and it is appropriate to credit/mention earlier incarnations of a proposal.  An AFD is not necessary and is not likely to reach informed editors who visit Wikipedia only occasionally; it woulda been more appropriate to make a merger proposal at the AMMP Talk page and allow a merger to be implemented when informed and interested persons show up there. --Doncram (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Debbie Reynolds part is irrelevant and I probably should not have included it at all but because it was showing up in my searches I wanted to make it clear that it is not related to this project. I believe it is appropriate to mention earlier incarnations of the proposal if that can be proven but there are no sources to back that up and you have not provided any either. Based on what I have found from the Online Archive of California suggests it is not. That is why I didn't propose a merger because I do not think the projects are related. My nomination still stands. <b style="color:#FF0000">Jay</b><b style="color:#0000FF">Jay</b><sup style="color:black">What did I do? 08:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, about "Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum" exactly, the Pacific Coast Architecture Database, which I and other National Register of Historic Places-focused editors have found to be a great, reliable source about architects, reports here that the project was designed, in fact designed by noted architect William Pereira. Maps there suggest it was to be located on N. Cahuenga near Santa Monica Boulevard, or on Vine St. (2 blocks away from N. Cahuenga, parallel) a couple blocks north of Santa Monica Boulevard. It cites two early 1960's articles in Progressive Architecture, a predecessor to Architecture (magazine) which I have not accessed, but may well have good info: And Guidestar, the main public source about U.S. charitable nonprofits' finances and more, reports here that the "Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum", based in Burbank, California (close to, but not including the Hollywood Bowl) had gone inactive. Using my Guidestar account (free, you could open one too) i find financial reports (United States IRS Form 990's) for 2013, 2014, 2015, reporting very small then zero assets, and inactive status, but naming 9 or 8 members of its board of directors including Debbie Reynolds (as well as Stephanie Powers, Barbara Rush, Rosemarie Stack, Bob Mackie, Ret Turner, and Todd Fisher (much younger than all the others, but who is (according to Wikipedia) CEO of Debbie Reynolds Hotel & Casino and involved in other Debbie Reynolds projects including "the Hollywood Motion Picture Museum, which is housed at Debbie Reynolds Studios (DR Studios) in North Hollywood and at his ranch")). --Doncram (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum Project", Progressive Architecture, 42: 2, 60, 2/1961.
 * "Pereira Houses the Arts, Old and New", Progressive Architecture, 43: 2, 50, 02/1962.

And, a summary of the "Hollywood Museum" project's extensive collection is given here, and the website further provides this historical account (with all bolding and wikilinks added by me, including to highlight other incarnations that might be mentioned): The Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum (commonly known as the Hollywood Museum) was planned in the early 1960s but was never built. Lack of funding, over-ambitious plans (a museum, galleries, film archive, library and academic complex, theater, sound stage, television studio, demonstration center, concessions, and administrative offices were part of the project at one time or another), and politics all contributed to its failure. This was not the first or the last attempt to build a museum in Hollywood honoring filmmaking. Previous plans—none directly linked to the Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum—included Motion Picture Relief Fund president Jean Hersholt's efforts in 1954 to build a film museum to bring in revenue for the Motion Picture & Television Fund Country House. His successor as president, E. L. DePatie, launched a campaign the following year for a Motion Picture Exposition and Hall of Fame, but the plans were dropped due to lack of industry support. Two years later John Anson Ford, acting chairman of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, moved to establish a committee to explore the creation of a museum in Hollywood. Headed by producer Jack Warner, the committee considered the Hollywood Bowl area as well as Exposition Park, near downtown Los Angeles, as possible locations. The possibility of such a museum in Exposition Park prompted the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce to push for a Hollywood locale. This was the impetus that resulted in the Hollywood Museum commission. In June 1959, under the initiative of Los Angeles County Supervisor Ernest Debs, whose district included Hollywood, the board of supervisors issued a mandate to build and operate a museum in Hollywood that would foster and perpetuate interest in the motion picture, television, radio, and recording industries. The Los Angeles County Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum Commission was formed, with retired producer Sol Lesser acting as chairman. The supervisors offered county-owned land opposite the main entrance to the Hollywood Bowl, supplemented by the acquisition of contiguous parcels. William Pereira, architect of the Motion Picture & Television Fund Country House and Hospital, was hired to study the site and eventually design the building. Two private nonprofit corporations were established in June 1960: the Hollywood Museum Corporation, for the museum construction, and the autonomous Hollywood Museum Associates (HMA), of which Lesser was president. The former would build the facility with county-guaranteed bonds, and the latter would lease it from the county for thirty years, after which the building would revert to the county. In December 1960 the board of supervisors suggested that the film industry put up half the cost of the project. This caused the HMA concern and was an early warning sign of the troubles to come. Over the next few years the HMA raised nearly $500,000 and gifts continued to accumulate. Groundbreaking ceremonies were held at the proposed site on October 20, 1963. Debs and Lesser, along with Gene Autry, Walt Disney, Jack Warner, Mary Pickford, Gregory Peck, Gloria Swanson, and others, addressed an audience of several thousand people. Early the following year, financier Bart Lytton, a founding member of the museum, publicly demanded an investigation of HMA finances. Despite his claims, the board of supervisors approved the museum lease. A county-condemned building on the site '''necessitated the eviction of its occupant, who consequently held sheriff's deputies at bay with a shotgun for several weeks until his arrest in April 1964. The dramatic standoff received much attention from the media, and taxpayers began to question the expenditure of public funds.''' The attorney for the evicted man immediately sued the county to prevent the sale of bonds to finance construction. The supervisors appointed a review board, headed by Lytton (who some claimed was disgruntled because he hadn't been appointed to the commission), that reported the HMA was operating at a deficit. "By late 1964, after having invested more than $1,000,000, the county froze funding. When Lytton saw the architect's plans in March 1965, he claimed the museum would cost $21 million to build. This estimated price tag far exceeded the original $6.5 million proposal and surpassed the amount of money raised thus far. Arguments ensued over how much the building would cost and where the money would come from. The HMA then suspended financial operations and stopped soliciting monetary donations. Two months later the county had completely withdrawn its support. The following month the proposed site was paved over to create a parking lot. (In the early 1980s the unrelated Hollywood Studio Museum, operated by Hollywood Heritage, Inc., opened in the Lasky-DeMille barn, which had been moved to the site.) By the time Lesser resigned as president of the HMA in August 1965, plans for the museum had been abandoned. Numerous attempts to resuscitate the project failed. ('''Two unrelated museums later opened in Hollywood: the presently shuttered Hollywood Museum on Hollywood Boulevard, showcasing John LeBold's costume collection, in 1984, and the Hollywood Entertainment Museum, near Mann's Chinese Theater in 1996.)" "The museum's acquisitions remained in storage facilities supervised by the county until September 1967. In 1968 the City of Los Angeles, through its Board of Recreation and Parks Commission, inherited the Hollywood Museum memorabilia when it paid storage fees owed by the county to the warehouses storing the material. The materials were transferred to the Lincoln Heights jail, near downtown Los Angeles, and placed in the custody of the Hollywood Center for the Audio-Visual Arts. Donor Betty Lasky began a campaign around 1976 to find a proper home for the acquisitions. Terrys Olender, Lasky's attorney, tried to convince Los Angeles Councilwoman Peggy Stevenson to relocate the material to Los Angeles-area institutions. Stevenson appointed Olender public service legal coordinator for the Hollywood Museum project in 1979. Within two years Olender and Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney Bruce Sottile had drawn up city-approved contracts to loan the 'research' portion of the collection to four area institutions for a period of 25 years, renewable for an additional 15 years. By May 1982 the research material was distributed among the American Film Institute, the University of Southern California, the University of California at Los Angeles, and the Academy. Ironically, one of the proposals made by Sol Lesser at a 1960 Hollywood Museum Library Committee organizational meeting attended by Margaret Herrick, Academy librarian Betty Franklin, and others was to have the legal committee draw up a performance contract so that the Academy could repossess Hollywood Museum gifts if they were in storage or not in use." So this was in fact the Debbie Reynolds-associated project, and the CNN source asserting a 1972 start is inaccurate, and the collection itself seems important, and there is a lot of reliable detail about the project available, and there was in fact a lot of news coverage about it and celebrity-studded openings and related shotgun-wielding crazy people. The project seems to me obviously to have been a real thing, not merely a figment of imagination of some fraudulent profits-obsessed postcard publisher. I do wonder if the 2021 museum has inherited or otherwise acquired that collection. So let me reiterate: "Keep", though now with different reasoning. Note the deletion nomination still has not been modified to make any valid deletion argument at all (the fact that the project never opened is simply irrelevant to Wikipedia notability, for example). --Doncram (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC) P.S.  Note also that proper treatment of the topic needs to properly characterize and link to existing articles Hollywood Museum and to Hollywood Heritage Museum and to topic Hollywood Motion Picture Museum (currently a redlink). --Doncram (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.