Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malacca Literature 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. Davewild (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malacca Literature Museum

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

Fails WP:ORG. Tiny museum, only primary sources. The Malay language version of this article is unreferenced LibStar (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Malacca is a historic place with lots of museums. These are notable, being documented in detail in sources such as Melaka History and Heritage in Museums. There may be some scope for merger, especially for those which are housed in the same building complex but, per our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, this would not be done by deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you've recycled this same argument in various afds but fail to show in-depth coverage about this specific museum. WP:PRESERVE does not override if an article is not notable. LibStar (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the book reference you've supplied doesn't even appear to even mention this literature museum, that's what happens when you recycle the same AfD argument over and over again. LibStar (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happens when you go on a deletion spree — you try our patience. For some detailed coverage of the place online see here. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

/www.virtualmuseummelaka.com/ is hardly a reliable source looks like a promo site for Malacca museums. That's what happens when you lie about a source in the first instance and barrel scrape in desperation for a genuine source. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.I invite others to check the sources provided in this discussion. One of them makes zero reference to this museum the other is a promotional site. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has more than 1 source of reference (not only from the primary source). The Malay version of the article also now has source. Tiny or big is really relative. In a gigantic country like China, all of their museums are mostly gigantic as well. In smaller countries/regions like Singapore, Liechtenstein, Macau or Malacca, of course the museums are smaller or "tiny" as per your definition. Chongkian (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if you look at the current 5 sources, virtualmuseummelaka.com and AmazingMelaka.com are tourism promotion websites. this and this merely confirm the existence of the museum and do not establish notability. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once we have confirmed the existence of the museum, the rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, because AFD is not cleanup. The place is Malaysian and the official language is Malay. The best sources will tend to be in that language such as this. Carping criticism of the English language sources is therefore unimportant. Andrew D. (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no, just because you can prove something exists does not qualify for automatic notability. I do not discount foreign language coverage and of course can be used to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then if I may know what is your definition of notability? The article has its english name, native name, coordinate, building type, photos (exterior & interior), opening year, city/town location, definition, history of the building, history of the museum itself, architectural info, detail of its exhibition, opening time, wiki common category page, several web references (english & non-english - not any blog website), its facebook page, listed in several wikipedia categories, and yes, it does exist in Malacca. What else it needs to have? .. I have found these 2 articles about museums in the United States: Mai Wah Museum and World Museum of Mining which are far less notable/legit/complete/reliable, yet they do exist without any request for article deletion. Chongkian (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

read WP:ORG. opening times and facebook pages do not add to notability, historical signficance does provided it is covered in reliable sources not advertising or blog sites. citing other museum pages has no bearing on this discussion as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG is just a guideline and so tells us that it should be interpreted using common sense. My common sense view is that, as this is a respectable cultural institution of the sort we favour for our GLAM activities, then we should welcome it. As their primary language is not English, we should expect to take time to locate and translate comprehensive coverage. If the page should be stubby in this meantime then it is our clear policy that this is fine. Deletion would disrupt such development and so is not sensible. Andrew D. (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is not disruptive to delete an article if that's an outcome of an AfD. Next thing you'll be recycling the WP:PRESERVE = KEEP argument. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More references (non-Youtube, non-blog, non tourism website) have been added to the article. Chongkian (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference from Utusan Online newspaper (in Malay language) was added, and add also the reopening date of the museum after its renovation due to the new status of Malacca as world heritage. Chongkian (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant coverage found in the book Building Cultural Nationalism in Malaysia: Identity, Representation, and Citizenship, add that to the other sources cited in the article and it meets WP:GNG. Altamel (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2015 (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.