Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Museum of Australia

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. Secret ^account 02:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Museum of Australia[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. No independent sources seem to confirm its existence. It seems to be a proposed project of the National Library of Australia, but does not yet appear to actually exist. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The museum is a major digitization initiative of Australian museums and a registered charity in Australia. The existence of the museum can be verified at www.asic.gov.au, www.ato.gov.au and numerous other Australian government sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.94.236 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just run a search via ASIC on all gov.au websites: not much in the way of results. ATO doesn't have anything either. Please can you provide links to this content? It's worth noting that if the DMA is a National Library project, most government websites would not count towards its notability in any case, given that they are not independent of the subject. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. nothing on a major Australian news site [1]. LibStar (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this actually had nothing to do with the National Library, or any other government organisation, but is part of the private Matilda Media/Alex Hartman/Peter Scarf conglomerate, that has embedded itself here, through a lot of WP:SPA/COI editing. Nice idea, but it seems to duplicate what Trove/NLA is already doing, and is not yet notable enough for an article. Maybe be suitable for a redirect to Matilda Media, but even that is a bit spammy/advertorial whilst it is in the startup phase. The-Pope (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORGDEPTH and regulatory or registration listings (ASIC/ATO) would not be considered "significant coverage" enough to confer notability. Stalwart111 07:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet our notability requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:42, 14 February 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.