Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The ToonSeum


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The ToonSeum

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A non-notable museum. It claims to be the third cartoon museum in the US, but being third is not itself notable. It has hosted notable exhibits and guests, but this does not convey notability. None of the staff or leaders are notable. A search online for citations reveals mostly press releases with only regional coverage besides. This means it has not accomplished any national recognition or significance like the other two. It was created by someone calling themselves "Toonseum," leading to obvious WP:COI issues. An attempt at PROD was contested by a single-use account. Dragoneer (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is substantial recurring local coverage including the major dailies as well as coverage in the New York Times . -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The fifth link you provide is about the exhibit, not the museum. The NYT article is about KickStarter and does not provide info on the museum beyond it having a couple exhibits and needing money, so that's arguably trivial coverage. Dragoneer (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect to the NYT article, I agree that coverage is a bit tangential, but it more than just a mere mention. It needs to be considered as part of the whole body of coverage.  As for the fifth link being about the exhibit and not the museum, a cartoon museum can and should be noted for the exhibitions that it curates.  This is not a case of WP:INHERITED as exhibiting cartoon works is the museum's reason for existence.  As such, the coverage about the exhibit does help establish the notability of the museum. -- Whpq (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak keep - the sources Whpq found should be incorporated, but it did seem to attract some coverage. I also agree with Whpq's reasoning concerning the importance of notable exhibits. Huon (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Toss the NYT source. It's not really about the ToonSeum, and if anything seems to confirm non-notability by claiming their fundraising effort amounted to a rather pitiful $465.  Still, I feel that notability has been established by the other sources, even if only just barely. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:52, 17 May 2010 (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.