Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia Youth 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 no consensus. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Youth Museum[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews for English or Malay name, sources provided merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a public attraction. I'll grant that the article doesn't make it sound very exciting to visit, but museums are basically notable. This appears to be a publicly funded one, with opening hours of at least five days per week (per the Wikipedia article, not that such should be stated in the article) as opposed to a private museum in a person's house that is not regularly open. --do ncr am 05:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

none of these reasons address how a notability guideline is met nor the WP:SIGCOV test. this appears a knee-jerk keep !vote without a proper demonstration of sources. opening at least 5 days a week is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

museums are basically notable please let me know the notability guideline which states that. LibStar (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is the usual outcome, from my experience with AFDs, that museums are kept. I comment further below. --do ncr am 19:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. What the heck is the relevance of asserting a place is not in current Google News coverage, in an AFD about a museum? So what? I would think/hope most museums would not be breaking news with scandals or whatever. That is no basis for an AFD nomination; it rather suggests that wp:BEFORE was not performed. --do ncr am 20:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

museums are not inherently notable. And that can't be used as a basis for arguing keep . LibStar (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so now you're saying a lack of coverage is somehow ok for musuems? Ridiculous. Notable museums all get significant coverage even in gnews. You need to stop with your weak arguments in AfDs. LibStar (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Museums are not inherently notable. This one has limited sources confirming nothing more than it exists. Ajf773 (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean the current article's sources don't do much more than confirm it exists, not that sources about the museum and the historic building and the gallery don't exist in Dutch and other languages, which we have not found and used in developing the article yet. --do ncr am 19:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Several notes:

The building is a historic building, a Dutch government building that has, like many others in Malacca, been repurposed to a museum. It is one of 10 museums within walking distance that seem to have been created as part of a government effort to foster Malay "cultural nationalism". See Building Cultural Nationalism in Malaysia by Timothy P. Daniels. The Google books view lets me see its page 108 which describes the art gallery upstairs in detail, but not its continuation on page 109 which I think is describing the youth museum. All 10 of those museums might be covered in navigation template {{Museums of Malaysia}} currently. There's not a lot on each of the separate articles, but it is okay by me that they exist as separate articles. An alternative would be for an editor seriously interested in the topic(s) to create a comprehensive list-article of museums in Malacca or in Malaysia as a whole and redirect some of the separate museum articles to sections in the list-article (but then of course the longer separate articles may still be valid, so would be kept and linked). I doubt that anyone involved in this AFD so far is actually interested in taking on such serious editing.
I am not finding what the building was named in Dutch or English or any other language though. Searches on just "Malaysia Youth Museum" don't yield hits on the historic purposes of the building, but I believe that it is historic and sources covering it do exist, although perhaps not so much on-line and not so much in English. It is very very common for museums to be located in historic buildings.

There is a 1931 date of significance for the building (which if it is a construction date is not terribly old), from the page 61 coverage about the museum in academic thesis / tourism study in PDF file downloadable from here. The building was part of the "Dutch Administrative Complex". However I don't trust that this building is 1931-built. Other "Dutch Administrative Complex" buildings date back to 1641.
Their source is "PERZIM", which I think is the administration running the museums, and there is page after page about the various museums, in this research study about tourist views. Again I am getting some impression that the collection of museums is notable, but still I think it is easier to have separate articles about the museums instead of, or in addition to, a new article about the collection of them. --do ncr am 20:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous hits on "Malaysia Youth Museum" in tourism-related articles, including many mentions of it being nearby to other museums. Frankly it sounds like a dud in terms of marketing, at least I don't really want to visit it the next time I am in Malacca, but still it is a part of systematic government effort to create tourist attractions, build "cultural identity", spew out propaganda or what have you. It is significant that the government is creating and supporting these. And it is covered as an attraction in TripAdvisor and other international travel guides (albeit with faint praise "Quite detailed but could be a bore for some"). Museums are covered in travel guides, that happens, and that does document existence. I don't see why Wikipedia should delete its coverage of them.
Also, note that the building has the Youth Museum on the first floor and an art gallery on the second, which has a separate Wikipedia article at Malacca Art Gallery. I think it would be fine for editor(s) to combine the two articles into Malaysia Youth Museum and Art Gallery or similar title.

I voted "Keep" above and I think it is both simplest and best to do so. --do ncr am 19:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you seriously think tripadvisor is a reliable source? Tripadvisor lists every hotel and minor tourist attraction under the sun. Has this been covered in major Malaysian newspapers? Rather thsn your WP:GOOGLEHITS argument. LibStar (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm adding some references from ProQuest. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smmurphy, both the links you now have added go to a login page for Lancaster University, and apparently you have to be staff or a student at the university to use it. I'm sure you found stuff, but the way you've linked to it doesn't work, at least for me. If there's something that goes to notability behind those unhelpful links, I might change my mind, but it seems unlikely on the face of it. Mentions in "tourism-related articles, including many mentions of it being nearby to other museums" don't exactly show notability. The museum exists, and they would like for it to attract tourists, and that seems to be it. Bishonen | talk 23:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Thanks for the note, the links had an "accountid" that I didn't notice. I've removed the accountid bit and tagged the refs as subscription needed. It would be really great if WP:TWL had ProQuest, but as is one needs access from somewhere else to use it. ProQuest is, in general, a lot better than google news or newspapers.com for finding news articles from between, say, 1960 and 2005, especially print and non-US/Europe sources. One of the links is to a book which is basically a visitors guide and is published by (I think) a state-run media company. The other is a newspaper article which is also a visitors guide and is in the major English language newspaper of the country (again, I think). Neither are terribly in depth, and the first isn't terribly independent. But to me, both are still basically third party (and at least establish Verifiability). My standard here is that, while I don't find great evidence of GNG, I find weak evidence of it in spite of having next to no access to Malaysian sources and no skill in the Malaysian language, so I feel pretty sure that GNG would be possible with those resources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! I meant to copy your sig into my ping and accidentally pasted rather than copied. I am so sorry. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I always use that copy method too, I thought that was probably it. Don't worry! Bishonen | talk 01:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the sources mentioned above has a multipage discussion of this museum [1]; other English-language references are apparent in a GBooks search. Enough here to validate this as a notable museum. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a public museum. Here's some discussion in Building Cultural Nationalism in Malaysia: Identity, Representation, and ... By Timothy P. Daniels. This suggests a notable museum to me. Additional sources are likely to exist in Malay. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - request relist - It is true that the sources in the AFD currently are not useful (many of them are very brief coverage including the book source). To be blunt here, (and as someone in a neighbouring country) I seriously doubt there is enough significant coverage about the museum. From my personal experience, this isn't exactly a notable museum either (if I compare it to others in the region). That said, I would be willing to look for more sources which are not available online. Could we please relist this for a week? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - recommend a no-consensus close OK, I have to apologise for wasting time here. Unfortunately due to certain real life constraints, I wasn't able to make a trip to the library. However, the content is clearly valuable. If there is not enough for a standalone article, I would definitely recommend a merge. Can we please close this as no consensus for the time being? Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:31, 15 March 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.