Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devonshire Collection of Period Costume

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devonshire Collection of Period Costume[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. found no indepth coverage of this small museum. it gets one or two line directory listings in travel books but that doesn't count as indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment - Conflict of interest note - I actually know this museum quite well, have visited it quite a few times. It's quite small, but it's pretty well known in the field of dress history and is quite rare nowadays as one of the few still surviving fashion museums following pretty widespread closures of other similar institutions. It goes by several names, including the Totnes Fashion and Textiles Museum, Bogan House, etc, so pinning sources down is tricky. [1] is a third party in-depth description and reference from Brighton University. [2] shows that there is a detailed description published in this book from 1983. You have to think quite creatively, as there are a number of alternative names for this collection and its home, but the Totnes Fashion & Textiles Museum seems to be the current going term for it. By that name it's mentioned in a great many guidebooks and tourist guides. At least a rename might be appropriate. Mabalu (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found nothing by its alternate name [3]. LibStar (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)][reply]

That is because you are being literal and searching for exact word combinations/quotes. For example, it is one of a SMALL selection of dress and textile museums worldwide selected for [4] - where it is called the Totnes Costume Museum. Being listed in an encyclopaedia alongside collections from across the UK, Paris, Canada, the States, and South Africa is evidence of notability, particularly when that encyclopaedia admits their list is "by no means even a fraction of the many collections of costume" - Totnes obviously stood out enough to merit an individual mention. The building itself, Bogan House, also attracts some attention as a historic building in its own right, including this reference from the RAMM website [5]. Mabalu (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this one is purely a directory listing, and is not indepth. the other one also looks like a directory listing (albeit longer) listing phone number etc. what we are looking for is indepth coverage in third party sources like newspapers or books. not museums referring to other museums. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "other one" is part of the Royal Albert Memorial Museum's official website and hardly a directory listing. Mabalu (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Royal Albert Memorial Museum's official website" is not really a third party website, it's a museum referring to another museum. Where is the coverage in major newspapers or news sites? LibStar (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Madalu. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:PERNOM doh. He says it all. Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and that's listed as Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it shouldn't be, given that if the nominator already spelled out everything in your argument why should you be required to spell it all out again. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- AS a publicly open museum, I consider that it ought to be notable. My problem is that most of the external links in the article appear either to be broken to lead to websites on Devon or this part of it generally. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"AS a publicly open museum" is not a criterion for notability. there are probably 10s of 000s of tiny publicly open "museums" in the world that wouldn't meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe we need to do something radical and realise that WP:ORG is too tight. I see lots of hue and cry about how Wikipedia's notability standards are too lax but everyone seems to forget Wikipedia is not paper. I'll freely accept that there are some notability standards that are laughable (such as WP:NBOOK that lets gems like this get retained at AfD!) but the overall trend from the policy WP:V being predominant to an increasingly-tight guideline WP:N disturbs me greatly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename and rescope to Totnes Fashion and Textiles Museum - the article should be about the museum as a whole, not a specific collection within it, however the museum is something that should be covered in Wikipedia; are there any of our UK-based Wikipedians who can help with offline sourcing? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can help with offline sourcing, I've got plenty of contacts and sources and actually used to live quite close to the Museum at one point. Technically, the museum and the collection are one and the same. I was always aware of its existence even as a kid (it's been around a long time) and I am pretty sure that over the thirty-odd years (or more?) it's been in existence, there must be sources on it. Pretty busy at the moment with not a lot of free Wiki-editing time, but happy to try and track down info... Mabalu (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2013 (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.