Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft and Wizardology Museum

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 write about the building and not the museum. We'll keep this as a redirect to the new article about the building. £5 for Mr DiverScout. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Witchcraft and Wizardology Museum[edit]

Witchcraft and Wizardology Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

None notable, article was started by the owner so is advertising . I don't like listing for Afd but I think this is beyond saving. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete The building (which the article is mostly about) appears to have a certain modicum of notability, but the museum itself, not really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references to support the claim that such a museum even exists. Looie496 (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I would have renamed it to be an article about the pub that was once housed there, or the address, but there must be dozens of pubs with similar notability, and we don't have articles about other White Lion pubs, or even all that many pubs. If you look at Category:Public_houses_in_England, the benchmark for inclusion is (or should be) quite high. Sticky Parkin 01:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Fair point, but what do you mean by 'other White Lion pubs'? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume it means other pubs called "The White Lion". It is a common pub name. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many of them are there?:) People live in many listed buildings in almost every village or town, as their homes. Does the tiny rickety house my mum nearly bought get an article? This shop is only one third of the building, no. 21. The remains of the listed building, numbers 19,20 and 21 are just shops now. All listed means is (annoyingly for the occupiers) people have to maintain it in a certain way, and can't make many alterations to it. We don't have pages for most of the many listed pubs. But I suppose it would be better than the current article, which is an advert by the bloke who runs the shop or something.:) Sticky Parkin 21:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance of how many they are. They have all been selected by English Heritage as buildings that are of particular historical or architectural interest, which shows notability. There is a long-standing consensus that listed buildings are notable. JulesH (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that reference, Jules. That shows that the article's claim that the building dates from 1541, and is Elizabethan (note contradiction) is false; the listing entry shows that the building dates from the 17th or early 18th centuries - in other words, about one or two centuries later than the claim. Additional thought: the claim that this is well-known as one of Britain's most haunted buildings can, in fact, be checked. I don't have my copy of Haunted Britain by Anthony Hippesley Coxe (I hope I spelled that right) to hand, but something like that would be a good starting point. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding references that the White Lion pub may in fact date from c. 1541, but the architectural assessment suggests that the buiding that housed it may have been demolished and rebuilt. The Reader's Encyclopedia of Shakespeare, for instance, records the date of opening of the pub as 1591. 1541 is plausibly a misreading of this figure (or vice versa).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and rewrite. The museum itself is clearly not notable. It can't even agree on its own name. This seems to be its homepage: [1]. It gets a local newspaper review here which makes it clear that it is a very minor establishment with little to recommend it: [2]. The building sounds like it is notable, provided the claims can be substantiated. Listing is certainly not automatic notability but there are additional claims here. The article should be recast about that if it is kept. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the entry (and museum) has issues, and the page requires a lot more editing, but notability under Wikipedia crtieria for museums is establishable. Original article may have been COI, but a bit of work and some research should sort out that issue. There are plenty of references to prove that the museum exists, even though it seems to have altered its name a few times. Building is notable, and luckily listed building status protects buildings like it from the attention of owners who wish to act as architectural deletionists! XD DiverScout (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is not a proper museum. It is a small commercial entertainment based exhibition. Its website has the following disclaimer: "Due to changes in Consumer Law replacing the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 we are obliged to state the following: "All services provided on ghost hunts, vigils and other events are for entertainment purposes only."" The single review I found does not constitute significant coverage. Maybe there is more under its other names so I had another go with Google. This is another candidate for its home page: [3] (it seems to link to the other one). Here is its listing on the local tourist board site: [4]. I am not seeing more RS coverage than that and I don't think it is sufficient. I still think that the building may be notable (provided all those historical references checkout OK) but the museum should not get more than a single sentence noting the current use of the building, if it is kept. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - well the three reviews I've added (out of a plethora on the net) include one from a notable newspaper. There is also an entry from the County Council. A museum does not have to be a registered museum, it simply has to record an area of history. Many museums are not registered as per UK legal museum status. The onlt difference with this one is that it covers an area that some people will find controversial due to religious considerations. If sources can be found for the building, outside of the context relating to the museum, perhaps this could be considered for a change of emphasis. DiverScout (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - My original comment below addresses the question of 'UK legal museum status'; there is no such thing. I'm astonished that you think this nomination or debate has anything to do with 'religious considerations'; no-one has mentioned such a thing before you. The reviews you added are interesting; but the one from the Birmingham Mail strongly suggests that this 'museum' has no collection at all - just a few gimmicks and a lot of interpretive signage. I don't think it's any more notable than any other commercial operation (a sweet shop, for example) would be in the same premises. And as I've said above, the source that JulesH found suggests that the claims about the building which are made in the article are simply lies. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The name 'museum' is not protected in British law, so any organisation or venue, no matter how minor or how unlike a reasonable expectatation of a museum, may call itself that. The mere existence of an entity calling itself a museum is not notable. Grade II listed buildings are not inherently notable; there are many many thousands of them, especially in older towns like Stratford. There is a well-known and long-established witchcraft museum in Boscastle; this isn't it. 'Wizardology' isn't even a word. I may reconsider if someone can show (1) that the museum's collection contains noteworthy artefacts; (2) that the building's listing level is higher than a basic II; (3) that the organisation is registered with the Charity Commission, and has returned accounts at least once; (4) that the collection is accredited by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council; or (5) that at least two independently compiled tourist guides (ie, not pay-for-inclusion volumes) dedicated space to reviewing this attraction. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - none of which is required to demonstrate notability for Wikipedia... DiverScout (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but they are all very good ways of demonstrating significant coverage, which is required, and has not yet been shown. If significant coverage can be shown in other valid ways then that is fine too. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Notability as per Wikipedia guidelines is all that is required. Arguably this article already has achieved that level, but it os not for either of us to make that call. DiverScout (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Er, actually, it is for us, collectively, to make that call; that's what this discussion is for. And I think it fails. The building isn't early Renaissance, as claimed. The 'museum' has no notable features. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This leads to an interesting question: If a pub is rebuilt, is it still the same pub? Ditto, if it changes name and or ownership? My impression is that a pub is often regarded as a continuous establishment if it keeps its name. Perhaps that is one to puzzle over as we prop up the bar. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability requires "significant coverage", see WP:GNG. In my view, the Birmingham Mail article only takes us about half way there. The same level of coverage from a second reliable source would switch it to a weak keep for me. If this "museum" really was notable it would pick up quite a lot of RS coverage, in the local press at least. Instead we find only one review so far, written by a guy who visited it by chance (was not actually sent there by the BM) and makes the minor nature of this exhibition clear. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience,[3] or extremist may be used as sources of information about themselves,...(see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Well, we both know policy. That is a good start. There are many reviews of this museum - so far I have only spent 7 minutes of time on this article, ignoring a large number of "fringe" articles allowable under the above, and have added citations, wikilinks and references without breaking a sweat and knowing nothing about the museum or the subject before starting. That also possibly says something about the notability of this museum. :) The sources I have already added are secondary sources, "Independent of the subject", and reliable. There are also plenty of them. I believe WP:GNG is met, but may look for some additonal sources later. DiverScout (talk)
  • Response - This talk of fringe theories is tangential to the main point. It's not necessary to have any particular view on witchcraft, ghosts, or any other such thing in order to assess the notability of this self-style museum. The existence, operation, and notability of museums is not a fringe topic by any stretch of the imagination, and no special pleading is required. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I don't see it as being needed in this case, as there are plenty of secondary sources, but as this "museum" is part of the fringe due to their supernatural claims, I feel that a case can be argued. We may have to differ on that one. With regard to the earlier statement, it is not for us to decide. Wikipedia is adversarial judicial, in as much as we are not counting votes to retain or delete this article. We need to focus on policy, make our case and then, as you know, a third-party will decide if our case has been made. DiverScout (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think they are making serious supernatural claims. The disclaimer on their site makes it clear this is all for entertainment. That said, I also don't think it affects notability either way so we don't need to take a view on this. It is either notable as a tourist attraction or it isn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've added a few more references and have noticed that the official local tourist pages refer to this as one of the major tourist attractions in Stratford. Even I'm surprised to read that, but its out there. DiverScout (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - I can't tell for sure, but I think that local tourist board page is pay-for-entry. Besides which, even if it weren't, tourist boards are not reliable sources; they gleefully report any old ahistorical crap that the venues they're promoting will pass them. To take an extreme example, a tourist board in Wales produced a certificate proclaiming that charity fund-raiser and independent political candidate Captain Beany, the human baked bean was a tourist attraction. I'm not sure we're obliged to take such claims seriously. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - They don't charge and are independent, third parties. DiverScout (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources aren't adequate enough to probe notability. Delete as per WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please indicate which elements of WP:NOTE you feel need covering, as I see can't see which part of GNG is not now covered. DiverScout (talk)
  • Additional sources re the building: Fogg Stratford upon Avon: Portrait of a Town 1986 includes numerous references to this building and its history. It is mentioned in the Readers Encyclopedia of Shakespeare (1966) which gives a date of opening of the White Lion pub as 1591. Fox The Borough Town of Stratford-upon-Avon details the original pub and notes that it was rebuilt in 1753 by John Payton (a prominent historic figure himself). JulesH (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also described, presumably in some detail, in Hill Shakespeare's Birthplace and Adjoining Properties 1885, as it is one of those adjoining properties. JulesH (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The building has a lot of history, and is now a museum. It seems to have adequate references now to back that up. Perhaps an article dedicated to the building itself, which is what most of the content seems to be about anyway, would be more appropriate, with a list at the end that it is currently being used as a museum. Dream Focus 20:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that it might make sense to switch the focus to the building, with the museum as the secondary section. If we agree I am happy to be bold and modify the article to reflect this, making the current title a redirect. We'd also need to agree the correct title for the new page. Suggestions? (I realise the we need to complete the AfD before acting on this idea) DiverScout (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually you don't need to complete the Afd before rewriting the article, or editing it any way, go ahead. I think there is enough here for an article, its just that the focus is wrong. pablohablo. 21:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've fiddled with the text and set a divert to the new page. Apologies if this looks like I'm treading on toes, please revert if offended! The new page needs extra details (such as closure date for Inn) but seems a bit more "comfortable" than it was. Comments on a £5 note please... DiverScout (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge  rdunnPLIB  10:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I support the recent bold move by DiverScout; there seems to be a good argument for the notability of the entire historic inn, with the 'museum' as a relevant element in the larger story. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep modified article at new location, props (but, sadly, no fiver) to DiverScout, time to close this Afd? pablohablo. 11:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect per DiverScout, pat on back (but no fiver, sorry). JohnCD (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect. Good job, Diver. Themfromspace (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Witchcraft_and_Wizardology_Museum&oldid=1138719470"