Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patriots Museum of Brazilian Emigration

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 00:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patriots Museum of Brazilian Emigration[edit]

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

small local specialized museum. No article on it in the czech WP. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only English reference is to a Facebook page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So.. you mean that all small local specialized museums which don't have articles on foreign WPs are not notable? And that only English references are acceptable? This is an interesting institution and there is a possibility to compile an interesting article based on reliable and independent sources I list below. Some of them are media with national coverage, some of them are "local", but definitely acceptable. Deleting of this information would be a disservice to Wikipedia, in my opinion.

Muzeum vystěhovalectví v Náhlově mapuje putování Čechů za brazilským štěstím (Czech Radio) (in Czech)
Česká stopa v Brazílii (Respekt) (in Czech)
Muzeum vystěhovalectví otevřelo nový sál (Deník) (in Czech)
Krajanské muzeum vystěhovalectví do Brazílie v Náhlově u Ralska (Deník) (in Czech)
Ekonom z Ralska pátrá v Brazílii i po emigrantech z Českolipska (Deník) (in Czech)

--Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ridiculous. Let's start with WP:NONENG: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed". Furthermore, there is no requirement that an article exist on another language server. We can also see, per Vejvančický above, that the topic has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which therefore meets the general notability guideline. C 679 06:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do seem to have more than enough significant coverage in Czech reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have significant reliable source based coverage. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:15, 7 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.