Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Postcard 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 delete. j⚛e decker^talk 23:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Postcard Museum

Chicago Postcard Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:WEB. Since my WP:BEFORE analysis of sources returned so few results, I'm going to list everything right here in the nom:

• Currently in the article:
  • David Hoekstra's Sun Times blog (Nov. 2007): Decent length article on the website, about a dozen journalism-length paragraphs (i.e., one- to two-sentence paragraphs). Might be enough for one instance of "substantial coverage", but arguable.
  • Steve Johnson's Chicago Tribune blog (Jan. 2008): Two paragraphs (comprising two sentences), originally printed as part of a longer column. I don't see this as being "substantial coverage".
  • Rachel Devitt's Chicago Timeout blog (Feb. 2008): Two sentences, part of a larger article on various locally-relevant websites. No longer available on Timeout.com's website. Not "substantial coverage".
• Lexis Advance returned five hits (one was Steve Johnson's blog post above):
  • Gregory Tejeda, Chicago’s “Elite Eight” for ‘08 at Blogspot. False positive: the only reason this hit was returned was because of an image credit.
  • Sandra M. Jones, "Crate & Barrel looks to Dubai; Emirate is 1st stop in overseas expansion", Chicago Tribune 8 March 2008: Article centrally on Crate & Barrel, but contains eight sentences referring to the Chicago Postcard Museum. Half of that discusses Gale and his memories of Marshall Field's, and half of the remainder is about a Marshall Field's "exhibit" by the Chicago Postcard Museum. I have serious doubts this is "significant coverage".
  • Andrew Huff, "City of Cards" at the Gapers Block blog (Jan. 2008): 27 words in one sentence announcing an exhibit. Not significant coverage.
  • Margaret Lyons, "Just Because It's a Federal Holiday Doesn't Mean We'd Skip the Awesome" at The Chicagoist blog (Jan. 2008): One sentence on the Chicago Postcard Museum mentioning that the author had just spent an hour looking at it. Not significant coverage.
• WP:SET: There are sixty-six results for "Chicago Postcard Museum". This is not filtering out any Wikipedia mirrors, and certainly not filtering out any mere image credits.
• Alexa pagerank is high enough that they don't track historical data: 9,370,939, which is higher (i.e., worse rank) than last month by over 3 million. Alexa also notes that there are a total of 55 incoming website links... which seems very low for the kind of website we'd consider notable.
• There are zero hits on any academic database to which my university subscribes.

That's all folks. That's everything that even merits consideration. Blogs and traditional sources. The very minor local interest in this website peaked within six months of its launch in 2007. Even if there is significant coverage here, it's all focused on one event... there's no lasting coverage as discussed in WP:EVENT.

I understand there may be some resistance given the creator of the website has started coming around spuriously claiming copyright violation on the article as a pretext to getting it deleted. I personally don't like deleting an article under such circumstances. But... there really is no notability here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – mainly as non-notable but also tangentially as promotional. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - none of this is substantial coverage. Trivial mentions in the local sections of newspapers, however illustrious, does not imply notability, because notability is not transitive; those same newspapers have a dozen micro-stories every day about local things like restaurants closing - that doesn't make any of the subjects of those stories worth having a Wikipedia article. Beyond that, there's evidence that it's a website which fails WP:WEB, and an article whose content can't be referenced with independent sources. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 18:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Philosophically, I'd like to keep the article, but several things bother me: the aggressiveness of the owner, the fact that the website seems to be a project of the owner's (presumably commercial) web resource company, the fact that the website asks for cash donations, but gives no indication that it is a tax-exempt organization, and doesn't warn potential donors of its yax status. None of this enters into notability per se, and it doesn't look to me to be overtly promotional, as suggested above - it looks more like a labor of love. The lack of strong sourcing is a notability problem, but still, I can't quite bring myself to !vote "delete", so I'm going to abstain, unless I see some stronger arguments here.

  (Odd, too, that a website is fighting to be removed from WP - most sites like this want the traffic.) BMK (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the time of the first page blanking—03:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)—and the time that this related AfD closed as "delete"—02:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC), I suspect the demand for deletion is out of frustration. I'd also note that the page owner is an online marketer... sometimes having something that doesn't freely comport with your current campaign (marketing that Living History group, as well as the current version of this article, which does a lot less to obfuscate that this is a website rather than a brick-and-mortar museum) is seen as a detriment. In any case, I just want to remind you that as far as notability is concerned (and I admit notability is not a policy), this is one of those cases where you can independently verify with little effort that this website is not notable. It was created in 2007 and has exactly 66 ghits; if it were a small, old, niche, very local museum (e.g., Chicago's old Museum of Holography) I could understand it having such a small web presence, but this is a recent website. And if you check any of those hits, they're almost all Wikipedia mirrors or websites giving image credits (despite the Chicago Postcard Museum likely having no copyright in any of those images). The only other possible sources are the two local radio stories from February 2008 (WLUW—9 minutes—and WBEZ—4 minutes). The WBEZ interview talks mostly about Gale and his hobby, and an unrelated postcard collector club (presumably there wasn't much to say about the "museum" at that point given it'd existed for less than three months). I haven't listened to the WLUW story yet. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the WLUW story is an interview of Gale, which almost entirely discusses Gale's hobby of postcard collection, plus repeated mentions of the website and its URL. Honestly... these strike me as being little different than reprints of press releases. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - After consideration of the arguments, I agree, not for reasons of copyright infrigement (those are bogus, NeilGale, and your hysteria will eventually catch up to you), but for lack of notability. BMK (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination which demonstrates that WP:WEB is not satisfied. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I, Neil Gale, am personally tired of being bullied by Wikipedia volunteers. I did not write this article. I don't see any value to Wikipedia visitors having this information available, which apparently, the Chicago Postcard Museum is not worthy of anyway. I find it funny that all this talk of sources and lack of citing is now being discussed after it has been on Wikipedia for six (6) years. This has only come about because I requested it removed from Wikipedia. If I had a "Marketing campaign" going, as suggested by Mendaliv, I would be seeking out real sources and not an open source biased fiasco as Wikipedia seems to be. Get over yourselves! Secondly, the group "Living History of Illinois and Chicago", which was removed from Wikipedia, actually has a real value to Wikipedia readers as it is constantly being added to daily and is an open Facebook group that everybody can learn real history from, without having to join to view it. The narrow mindedness of Wikipedia volunteers is second to none. And, yes... the removal of that article prompted me to get the Chicago Postcard Museum removed from Wikipedia as well. Neil Gale (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please assume good faith, please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, please bear in mind that the fact an article has existed for a long time is irrelevant to whether or not it is appropriate or properly formatted, please read Wikipedia's policy on editing with a conflict of interest, and please remember that subjects must be notable, not useful, in order to have articles (and, in addition, notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I just noticed that you guys forgot to mention (and rip apart the validity of) the Chicago Reader's full page, in color, article "Show us your...postcard museum" dated 2/2/2012 - http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/neil-gales-digital-chicago-postcard-museum/Content?oid=5546777. I guess it didn't fit-in your agenda. That is really first class research and discovery from "Professional" Wikipedia volunteers. Neil Gale (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, please assume good faith and remember that there is no agenda. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Gale, your tone is offensive and inappropriate for this discussion. Please keep things civil. Agyle (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources listed so far don't provide adequately significant "reliable source" coverage to meet the notability guidelines at WP:GNG and WP:WEB. In addition to the above linked sources, I also found a one-paragraph description in Antique Trader, and a one-sentence critique on Forgotten Chicago. I did not listen to the radio interviews, as User:Mendaliv's synopsis suggests they would not matter. Agyle (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB and per Mendaliv's in-depth analysys of the level of sourcing. Very poor Alexa rank (9,370,939!) seals the issue for me. Even the owner wants the article gone! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All I can find is this from Chicago Reader.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seriously... DELETE the Article already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil Gale (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and speedy close per WP:SNOW. There's obviously nothing to save here. I honestly don't understand why admins leave these obvious snowballs open so long that editors get backed into a corner, get emotional and start flinging personal attacks because they aren't getting their way. What I don't get about this discussion is both sides want to delete the article, but Neil Gale is still attacking everyone. Why hasn't this user been blocked yet? Shut it down, guys. Ivanvector (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, I don't think the notability issue was particularly obvious. No one person is apt to have found all the sources that were found here as a group, and interpretation of "significant coverage" and "reliable source" often vary between editors. I do think unfortunate choices were made in the nomination and in another editor's comment in bringing up the topic of an individual editor; those comments should have no bearing on the AfD nomination, shouldn't have been made, and created a hostile discussion from the outset. However, I think you're misplacing the blame for those choices on administrators; people are responsible for their own actions. Also, administrators, like any other editor, have no special responsibility to patrol every article on Wikipedia; it's quite common for years to pass before an editor raises an AfD nomination for a topic, particularly obscure ones like this with few links from other articles. Agyle (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to the admins, as a group - I mean to imply no wrongdoing and appreciate the work that the admins do for Wikipedia. I have recently come across a number of these discussions where the result was obvious, like this one, but the discussion was left open far too long such that editors had nothing left to do but attack each other, having already made all appropriate arguments about the article being considered. I do expect that someone is watching Afd pages and could close a discussion per WP:SNOW when it's an obvious result, and I think that there is quite a bit of harm done by letting these discussions get personal. In this case, nobody has argued in favour of keeping the article, yet the discussion is still open. Do we need to agree on why the article should be deleted before taking action? Ivanvector (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was listed two days ago; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says "A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven days." Agreement on the reason for deletion is not required for a consensus to delete. I don't think the personal accusations and namecalling resulted from foot-dragging; it started before the article was nominated, and continued here from the outset. Many AfD's are kept open for several weeks without personal disputes; I think the causes are unrelated to the duration of the discussions. Agyle (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.