Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beauty 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. Whatever the size of the museum, or the depth of coverage, not a single !voter has appeared in three weeks to support deletion. A merger of the three museums should be debated on the talk page of any one of them. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty Museum

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

Fails WP.:ORG . Another tiny museum from malacca that is housed on only one level. The article is based on 2 primary sources. Also nominating in the same building for the same reasons:

People's Museum

*Kite Museum LibStar (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all 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) 10:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you've recycled this same argument in various afds but fail to show in-depth coverage about these specific museums. WP:PRESERVE does not override if an article is not notable. LibStar (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the book reference you've supplied doesn't even appear to even mention this beauty, people's or kite museum, that's what happens when you recycle the same AfD argument over and over again. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are all listed on page 86 which discusses the Dutch enclave in Malacca where these museums are co-located. There's perhaps some scope for merger, where they form part of the same complex or building but that's not done by deletion. This is the key point of WP:PRESERVE and our other policies — that we should first look for sensible alternatives to deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the alternative to deletion is perhaps merge, but there is little justification for keep on the basis of poor availablity of sources. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all When I decided to write these 3 museums (Beauty Museum, People's Museum and Kite Museum), I was thinking to write it only as one article; 'People's Museum' might be the one name that can cover all. But then again, from all of the sources I've found and from visiting the museum directly, they do 'officially' divide the building into 3 different museums (with 3 different opening/officiating date for each of them). Even the transportation area in front of the building belongs to the People's Museum, not Kite nor Beauty Museums. Even if they were to be merged, I have no idea on which name to use to represent those 3 museums. This museum is housed in a 3-story building, thus it is not tiny. Besides, that is the characteristics of most of the museums in Malacca, they are not gigantic like the Forbidden City or the Louvre, there is nothing I can do about it. The Beauty Museum now has 5 references already. Chongkian (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't addressed how WP:ORG is met. I could have nominated them separately too. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added another 5 references for the Beauty Museum article which are non-Youtube link, non-tourism website and non-blog. Chongkian (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References 2 to 7 are all used in the first sentence and merely used to confirm existence of museum. LibStar (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm moving out the kite museum to its own AfD as I think it has particularly low notability. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all subject to possible merge of all 3 into 1 article. Sufficient evidence exists to validate this as a significant and notable Malacca tourist attraction; see for example [1][2] and I also have some concern about the systemic geographic bias inherent in deleting a subject like this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:55, 18 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.