Talk:Hilo Art Museum

Hawaii Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
	This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Museums

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Recent edits?[edit]

It looks like a non-registered user has been trying to update the article, but has repeatedly been reverted. Note that the web site www.hiloartmuseum.org now belongs to "ePharmacy" so it is probably safe to say the Museum is in fact defunct. That is, I would say without any evidence the Museum ever did re-open, we should move to the past tense and take out outdated information. W Nowicki (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I followed up with Ted Coombs and verified he was the one trying to remove his personal phone number and email because he was getting calls asking about the Museum (which never did open). Since the information was never sourced to begin with, I think removing the redundancy was reasonable, not vandalism. It is quite hard to get a source for something that does not exist. W Nowicki (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

I see no evidence of a substantial disagreement, but I presume this is in regards to the removal of the phone number and other details in the article, which I must conclude is quite reasonable. If there is further disagreement, explain here and I will take another look. Thanks.—Brad 01:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]