Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenmuseum.org (3rd nomination)

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. ✗plicit 11:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greenmuseum.org[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unsourced article about a now-defunct website. Tagged as {{advert}} since 2013. I read previous AFD discussions in 2011 and 2013 as giving it the "benefit of the doubt" given that it was still active. There are admittedly a few mentions in news/scholar/books/ProQuest but as far as I can tell, it's almost always passing mentions, footnotes or works by its founder Sam Bower. All in all, does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. JBchrch talk 10:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Substantial improvement by Netherzone. Still unsure about technical notability but there's no harm in keeping the good work of a neutral and competent editor. JBchrch talk 16:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 10:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 10:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 10:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I feel like there should be something out there, which I know isn't a valid argument for keeping. But I'm running into the same issues as the nom with much of the coverage being limited to papers by/interviews with the founders and others associated with the project. Want to keep looking though and hope I can find something, but at the moment doesn't appear to meet WEBCRIT, as stated. Star Mississippi 13:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment https://www.visualartsource.com/index.php?page=editorial&pcID=17&aID=401 provides some decent coverage that is not just "in passing", or "mere mention". 1866 words. I have not (yet) been able to find anything that has been written since its closure that discusses the museum's lasting impact or legacy. Vexations (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The GreenMuseum actually was a "thing": an online museum yes, but mainly an online clearinghouse for information about environmental and ecological art, artists and "toolkits" for ecoart pedagogical practices. They had a lot of influence internationally in the short period of time they operated. The org has been defunct for a number of years so I'm not sure how much is still online, but from a quick BEFORE search, here are some things.... a simple Google Books search finds many book hits:[1], if I search with the founder's name "Sam Bower Greenmuseum" I get these:[2] hits on google scholar[3], over 20 hits on JSTOR[4], ~~I'm also finding hits on newspapers.com[5].~~ Netherzone (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Netherzone your JSTOR results are part of what I ran into thinking there should be something. The museum's work was relatively well cited, but I haven't yet found much depth. It feels like a mix of academic/org guidelines are a better fit than web criteria, but they're not exact either. Star Mississippi 14:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Star Mississippi, yes, and another way to think about it would be as an extended socially engaged art project or Relational artwork of the founder, Sam Bower -- like a work of social sculpture. Netherzone (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The thing is that WP:ORGCRIT is even more stringent that WP:WEBCRIT. WP:NJOURNALS only applies to journals publishing scholarly material, which the greenmuseum was not specialized in. Maybe just WP:GNG then... JBchrch talk 15:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not in favour of turning AfD into an exercise of applying the notability guidelines as stringently as possible. Guidelines are not firm rules that need rigorous enforcement. The presumption of notability is just that. What really matters is verifiability: Do we have enough sources to sustain an article, not whether we can find a set of criteria that we can somehow meet, while ignoring another set. What is far more important than the guidelines is whether greenmuseum.org was the subject of a critical discourse. (Did people who matter discuss it as something that mattered?). I lean towards yes. Vexations (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Vexations, I don't think we disagree. I don't see a way this passes Web criteria, so looking for other means it could pass. The cited element of academic, fort example. I do think notability is more than verifiability, it existed, did enough people take notice? In depth coverage still seems TBD, although we're beginning to find sources. Star Mississippi 15:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article has just been stuffed. Delete the thing. Inadequate references. 22:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)
Keep - The article sourcing has been improved, meets WP:GNG. There is probably enough out there to also support an article on the founder & executive director, Sam Bower. See article for improvements. Here is a five page article I just found about the online museum and some of its online exhibits in the journal Public Art Review[6]] - see pages 52-55. There are other resources out there as well for further development. Netherzone (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been improved to the point where we now have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2021 (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.