Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fife Folk 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 redirect to Ceres, Fife. Content remains in the history for merging. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fife Folk Museum[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. museums are not inherently notable. 2 gnews hits are in the very local news. LibStar (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added text and several references relating to the museum and its buildings, but appreciate that these may still fall short of substantial coverage. An alternative to deletion could be merge and redirect to Ceres, Fife? AllyD (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

appreciate your efforts regardless of the outcome of this AfD. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A merger to Ceres, Fife would seem a very good idea, as there is some useful information here, if there is consensus that the museum is not notable enough to have an article of its own. Dunarc (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Ceres, Fife. Despite the heroic efforts of AllyD I don't think the range of references is significant enough to justify a separate article. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Ceres, Fife § The village per WP:ATD-M/WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as proposed, always a good option for attractions tied to populated areas. bd2412 T 03:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a newspaper search for the last 10 years and added more references including some coverage in other Scottish papers (it also has coverage in various guidebooks), as well as referencing most of the facts tagged as needing references. I don't have access to older newspapers but it seems likely more coverage exists. Also, the building is Category A listed which is normally considered strong evidence of notability. A merge wouldn't be terrible (although it might unbalance the target), and the existing sources aren't all the strongest, but I think considering all these points, it meets guidelines for a keep. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Museums are inherently notable, or at least in practice we keep them, because they are public attractions and coverage about them in reputable travel guides exists and so does other coverage. Articles on obscure private museums not open to the public may not be needed, but that's not this. wp:BEFORE not performed? --do ncr am 04:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museums are not inherently notable. listing in travel guides is hardly a case for notability especially when attractions often ask to be included in travel guides. LibStar (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is unpleasant, but LibStar is committed to wp:BLUDGEONing, in particular they are committed to commenting upon every comment/vote that I make. To continue quoting from the poem:

He stays so close beside me, he's a coward you can see;

I'd think shame to stick to nursie as that shadow sticks to me!

--do ncr am 15:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hardly. it's a clear refute of your clearly erroneous claim that museums are inherently notable. you do your AfD argument a disservice by deliberately lying. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While public museums may not be "inherently" notable, as claimed above, I would say they are generally notable except where reliable sources don't exist. This isn't the case here; the article is supported by multiple non-trivial sources. The Scotsman, Herald and Courier are all respected regional broadsheet newspapers. Also, as well as the museum, the building itself is likely to be considered notable on account of its listed status, and again there are sources to support this, such as Historic Scotland. While its notability could legitimately be called into question based on the state of the article when the nomination was made, I think it is now much more clearly established. Jellyman (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2017 (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.