Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pleasant Hill Historical Society 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. It is clear there is not a consensus to delete this article. There might be a consensus to merge this into Pleasant Hill but that consensus can be achieved through a BOLD action or through a merge discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Pleasant Hill Historical Society Museum

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Deprodded without explanation. A non-notable local museum; fails WP:NORG. As WP:NGO notes, local organizations are notable only if they have attracted coverage outside of their geographic region. That criterion doesn't even come close to being met here: a WP:BEFORE search finds only trivial mentions in the local press. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge and redirect to Pleasant Hill, Missouri I would support creating an exception for museum articles like this one, but until that discussion is had it is best to merge and redirect so as to preserve the information if a separate article is not necessary.--User:Namiba 16:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. wp:ITSAMUSEUM, an essay to which I contributed, gives the general argument:  it is a public attraction, it is a museum, there will exist coverage in newspapers over the years (specific coverage not yet looked for), etc.  This historical society and museum in fact was integral or at least contributing in supporting the National Register of Historic Places listing of the Pleasant Hill Downtown Historic District in 2005.  The deletion nominator and other commenter were not aware of this;  I just added a little about that to the article.  The museum building(s) are partly comprised of pieces of historic buildings, but is not itself included in the historic district;  it is adjacent at 125 Wyoming while the district includes 115 Wyoming.  See map in the full NRHP nomination document version at National Archives.  The museum continues to exist and has even been expanded, which itself says something about its significance, and it has an annual big fundraiser, the Pleasant Hill Railroad Days multiple-day event (with 78 vendors scheduled for the April 2021 event, though it was "with heavy hearts" cancelled for Covid https://phillrailroaddays.com/) which no doubt garners plenty of coverage.  Perhaps it would be an option to cover the museum in the historic district article, but it is not part of the historic district and that would be confusing.  Better to keep and develop this separate article, so that it does more fully tell the story of the development of the museum and the historical society and their roles in preserving and interpreting the history of Pleasant Hill.  Including about the creation of the museum building(s), and their expansion, which surely was covered in sources at and since that time.  Expand also to be about the Railroad Days event.  Pleasant Hill is 20 minutes from Kansas City, and the museum and its events will be covered in regional Kansas City newspaper(s), too. --Doncram (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge to Pleasant Hill, Missouri per the reasoning of User:Namiba, Doncram and WP:PRESERVE. While I do not think that everything that is a tourist attraction should be kept automatically, local history museums seem particularly encyclopedic as long-lasting repositories of recorded knowledge. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably keep -- It is often useful to have articles on Tourist Attractions. At worst merge.  In any event add a sentence or two on it to Pleasant Hill, Missouri.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nom's comment – no objection to a merge on my part. But museums are not ipso facto notable, and I continue to believe that, since no NORG-qualifying coverage can be found, keeping the article would be inappropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Pleasant Hill, Missouri - I'm not seeing how this organization meets WP:GNG. Tourist attraction or not - not every tourist attraction merits inclusion in Wikipedia, same with museums. Missvain (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge into Pleasant Hill, Missouri. Doesn't meet GNG or NORG as stated by nom, but would be a useful addition in the article of the town where it is located and perhaps it could incubate there if notability can be discovered by experts on the topic. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I !voted "Keep" above.  Others may differ, but I feel it's better to separate article on a local history museum from article of one place which it covers, and/or where it is located.  This helps for categories identifying it properly, and for clearly linking from possibly multiple location articles: Pleasant Hill, Missouri (the town), Cass County, Missouri and Jackson County, Missouri (the two counties that the town straddles).  I'm adding links from each of those to the existing museum article.  It wouldn't help to merge this article into just one of the location articles.  Sure, the article can use development, but I am sure there are plenty of local/regional materials available at the museum itself and in clippings files etc of local/regional libraries, if/when someone local chooses to expand it.  Should I call the historical society and ask them to provide sources and/or develop it themselves?  I couldn't imagine explaining why there can't be a separate article (if decision here goes against keeping) and how they should instead develop in at least three location articles instead. Seems best to just let this exist and be developed by the future local editor. --Doncram (talk) 00:09, 15 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.