Talk:List of music museums

Type of list
I agree with User:Metropolitan90's edit on this rather long list to make it conform to the bullet point 1 in WP:CSC i.e. each entry.must be individually notable so I support their edit on the page. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I also support the edit from User:Metropolitan90. We should keep the list to notable entries only. Ajf773 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There were more opinions given at the nomination, but they were not predominant. A decision has been made on the current list, and this one complies to the rules. References for each item can be found extremely easy, and please compare this one to other lists. Please stop your opposition. Ymnes (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Then source them. Otherwise WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE applies. So far three editors support removal. Ajf773 (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The decision was to keep the list but not as to what should be kept in the list itself this is decided by consensus as per WP:LISTN that states Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.. This is why I opened this thread to establish consensus as to the inclusion criteria of the list. Please remember that no one WP:OWNS this list. Even if they are sourced this does not mean that they will be notable enough to have their own page. We can decide to limit the list to those items that have their own pages and this is now the opinion of 3 editors on this subject. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a democracy of groups that join for an occasion either, and I have seen differing explanations among you. I first want a due explantion why you make a diffence in comparison with other lists. Some lists do not even have any source. That's not equal. This list is non-controversial and the items can very easily be verfied. Why exists that difference here? Ymnes (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right, Wikipedia is not a democracy but a community where WP:CONSENSUS is used to resolve editorial differences. As per the different policies and guidelines mentioned there are now 3 editors who are in clear agreement as to what should be included in this article. You may not like the consensus but you are bound to respect it. You can also use other methods to resolve this difference in opinions. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not true. You didn't reach consensus with me and your taste isn't in line with the nomination page. So answer me, why such a different approach here? Ymnes (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As per WP:CONSENSUS "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable) nor is the result of a vote." As I have already mentioned the AFD was for the deletion of the page and not the eventual content this was not the object of the discussion and is not mentioned in the closing. As I have suggested if you do not agree with the actual consensus amongst other editors you may seek another form of content dispute resolution. Once a nominated page has been kept then the content is discussed on its talk page. --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus and you avoid my question. Answer, why a difference with fairly any other list? Ymnes (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I do not really understand the question why a difference with fairly any other list. All I can repeat is that WP:LISTN states Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.. Each list is different and editors can decide at their discretion to limit with consensus, that, as I have tried to communicate, does not have to be unanimous which means that your opinion is important but is not a veto. I have gone round and round trying to explain this but I am going to have to stop because this is futile. Maybe User:Metropolitan90 as the original modifier and their experience as an admin can help here. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't repeat what you earlier said. Consensus is no powerplay but a result of exchanging convincing arguments. Please answer my question now. Ymnes (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please repeat the question clearly. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I stated it in other words yet and it was mentioned at the nomination page yet, so I don't get why you don't understand my question. I try explain it with more examples in my next section. Ymnes (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In order to attract more users to this talk, I have placed some notices on Wikipojects. Only on neutral places and without sharing my opinion, to prevent influencing the talk. Ymnes (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * will you please stop promoting there your own singular view. You influence the opinions there with a view that has been only yours until now, which means that you are canvassing! Ymnes (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Look I thought the question was simple do we limit it to bluelinked entries or not. This is going nowhere I'm going to drop the stick and leave it to others to debate I've said my piece and I'm off for a beer. Cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You had better not canvassed your singular view at pages where I did a lot of effort to restrain to a neutral and clean call. Canvassing is not allowed and be glad that I didn't start a procedure for it. I don't get your activism against this list anyway. This list is better than 99% of all lists on Wikipedia, that contain red links and nearly no references at all. What is really your point? This is unbelievable. Ymnes (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Far better referenced than other museum lists
Although a word like "always" should be avoided, museums can generally be regarded as being notable. I cannot find direct guidelines in this Wikipedia language version for this, but that may be very well a result of the common sense that they are. In one or the other way museums fairly always meet notability rules, like WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:NPLACE, WP:NFEAT and/or the fact that they display (cultural) heritage. Because of the importance of museums, one can find references very easily. Note too that the ability to find references easily is a stand-alone fact for notability as well.
 * Notability of museums

Verifiability of this list (repetition of part of the AfD nomination)

I work with the list in Dutch for two years now and I have the experience that the list is very correct. Next to that, one can verify the existence of each museum very easily. Next to that this list complies very much to the rules Wikipedia has set in WP:LISTN: So according to the rules, this list is very much OK. Each country contains blue links or sources or both, and there are dozens of sources given that refer to music museums as a group. The rules on Wikipedia do not require to do more than that. When I regard how other lists of museums are referenced, the way how this list is being discussed seems to be very much beyond bounds. I checked some dozens of lists in the Category:Lists of museums by country and those lists are nearly not referenced. This may be due to the fact that museums are generally regarded as being notable. At least this list is intensively better sourced than other lists on Wikipedia. So, finally, my question is... why is it required for this list to add even more references than is usual on Wikipedia for other museum lists? That is not fair, that is not normal, and since we are talking about museums – where there is seldomly doubt about notability – it is very unnecessary. Ymnes (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". I have given dozens of sources in the article that show that there are many sources that write about music museums, musicians museums, musical instrument museums, etc. There are really plenty of them.
 * "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."
 * "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable"
 * When I compare it to the Dutch language version of this list, one can see that especially those articles that are not yet written in English, are yet written in Dutch. See the blue links in the following countries there (nl:Lijst van muziekmusea): Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Poland and Spain. Since I have written hundreds of those museums in Dutch, I know generally that those articles are well sourced.
 * Other lists of museums


 * Oppose All of that is fine but whilst there is a fair chance that museums will be notable, not all are, the deletion discussions are full of exemples even if most have been kept quite a few have been deleted through discussion so the word "always" most definitely must be avoided. I searched for "Deletion" and "museum" here and of the first 30 discussions about individual museums in the list 10 were deleted, some of which apparantly had quite a few ghits:
 * Articles for deletion/Fenerbahçe Museum,
 * Articles for deletion/Rustaveli Museum,
 * Articles for deletion/Museum of Asian Music,
 * Articles for deletion/Museum of Contemporary Art, Asia,
 * Articles for deletion/Museum of Beigang Story,
 * Articles for deletion/Toy museum,
 * Articles for deletion/Museum of Zakaria Paliashvili,
 * Articles for deletion/Unicorn museum,
 * Articles for deletion/Law museum,
 * Articles for deletion/Museum of Arts and Sciences of Epirus.
 * Just because a place is called a museum does not make it notable. The opinion of three editors is that this list should be limited to museums that already have a page on English Wikipedia. I would suggest creating the pages before adding them to the list. (As we have already debated above a reply to this comment may not be neccessary and I shall not be particpating further). Dom from Paris (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your overview doesn't prove anything at all, and must be regarded a populist one to get your point. Museums can be deleted too for notability reasons when they are poorly written, that is not a discussion point here. Than you are undermining my neutral call on projects to look at this talk, by placing everywhere your singular opinion, which is canvassing! The discussion is not to get rid of all museums without an article, but about whether they should be all referenced. Then there isn't consensus when three people (of whom someone has canvassed) share the opinion that all museums should be sourced, when this has not been shared at all by quite some others on the AfD page: the real conclusion is that there isn't consensus at all. Furthermore you are again avoiding my question! Answer my question now. Ymnes (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's take this to your talk page because this is a problem of comprehension between us. --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you say? I have given arguments, with no address of yours, and... I have asked you again to answer to my question. Ymnes (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply to your topic on my talk page. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, there cannot be found it. You avoid a direct answer to my question and diffuse this talk. Please answer my simple question. Ymnes (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

So both of you really owe me an explanation why you attack me or this list particularly. I don't own this article, but you don't WP:OWN it either. Next to that, this talk page is not meant for freedom of speech (WP:CHAOS), nor for endless talks that lead nowhere (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY). And if you want other rules for lists, please start discussions on the places where they are meant for that. But don't use this list and me as a person to try out how far you can go to tease me out of here (WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, WP:NOTLAB). This list can be ranked among the top 5% lists on Wikipedia, it meets WP:LISTN fully, and there is no consensus for your ideas. Please give this list to the readers. Many of them have yet thanked me for it in the last two years and that is the reason why I made it available to English readers as well. One cannot skip part of the entries, because it crosses with WP:BALANCE; the choice of yours would infringe WP:NPOV in any way, since music museums are not even your expertise, but is mine meanwhile. And I know out of experience with the list that the selection of museums is notable and correct. There is really, but really no reason to attack this list as you do beyond all bounds. Please be honest and let the arguments count, not some imagined human right. So please stop your battle here. This is not honest any more and I have not deserved to be treated this way for offering a high quality list. Ymnes (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC) I'm sorry but you have totally lost me now. I don't see any point in continuing here but I will reply on my talk page to try and help clear this up. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the idea that "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" should apply to this article. People who study museums may consider music museums to be a notable type of museum, but that does not prove that every music museum is notable enough to be included in this list. This list should be limited to those music museums which satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please answer my question, why you make an exception here, whilst this exception is not upheld with fairly any other list on museums. This really needs an explanation. Ymnes (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't worked on other lists of museums recently, but I would support other lists of museums following a similar standard of only including notable examples. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I support that idea. Claiming that this article should have non notable examples beacuse others do should push us to reconsider the other lists rather than continue that kind of editing here. --Dom from Paris (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Dom, you avoid my question, please give a direct answer to it. Ymnes (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The simple answer to the question "why you make an exception here, whilst this exception is not upheld with fairly any other list on museums" is that each article is treated individually and debated on its talk page to gain consensus so there is not really such a thing as an exception. Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean that we have to edit each article in an identical manner. The other reply is that the other articles are most probably in need of some editing to get them up to the standard that we wish for this one. I hope this makes things clearer for you as I honestly can't make it any clearer. --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To simple to be true, because both of you are again refusing to answer directly to my question. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, neither is it a human rights project. Your appeal to your 'right' of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't at stake here, since this article does meet the rules for the main space of WP:LISTN. Although one certain entry can be discussed in case of doubt, not a whole group of entries may be deleted (which is against WP:LISTN).
 * To attract users that have your talk page on the watchlist, is a form of canvassing. Please stop with your games. My plea here above doesn't contain one word Chinese and is, again, full of clear and valid arguments. Don't attack particularly this list, when it can be ranked among the top 5% of the best lists on Wikipedia and complies to the rules. You don't have a right. Stop teasing. Ymnes (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The list is excellent. Maybe it is possible to list too many music museums but for sure it should not be limited to museums that have a page on Wikipedia.Patriot1423 (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Americana is what is being primarily deleted
Oppose blanket deletions, individual deletions only. I was unaware of this list, and like it. It has a wide swath of musical tastes. While I like culling non-referenced statements in regular articles, I dislike doing so in lists such as this one. Those individual bullets deleted were each an item that interested a person enough to add them to the list. As I look at what was (?temporarily?) deleted, I notice that many are what I consider works of Americana. Hank Williams, James D. Vaughan, Robert Johnson, Tuba museum...I know that simply tacking on a name of a famous person or of a concept does not necessarily imply notability. However, I find it interesting as to what goes (old country, old blues, banjo museum and not the Musée du Hard Rock Café. There was a National Museum of Hip-Hop deletion too, not my music but definitely American, if not Americana). I see no point in the deletions, other than to remove certain kinds of entries. The deletions also tend to target the small scale mom-and-pop museums, small places that were projects of love; these lack the funding of the large museums (and thus notability) and are part of disappearing small-town America. I would rather see point by point deletions (so that they can be argued and defended if anyone has the energy). The result will probably be that no-one will show up to defend the entries, and they will go anyway. I also think that those deleting from this list should also make contributions by adding references, a good faith effort to try and save entries, rather that just saying, "Oh, delete!"Jacqke (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC) The reply given here by Jacqke, is very valid. One fan of a particular museum can write a lot of that type of museums on Wikipedia. But this makes very clear why Wikipedia cannot be used as the source for a list, because such an approach will not give a right oversight of what museums one can expect within the sphere of music, musical instruments and musicians. Ymnes (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I had not even seen that the deletion of the non-referenced museums was actually harming the neutrality of the list. When there have been written more museums on certain music styles, it will not give a balanced view of music museums indeed. Thank you very much for your opinion Jacqke! Ymnes (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * When I went through and removed the museums that don't have articles of their own, I started with those in the U.S. If some of the museums that were removed from the list deserve to be restored, they can be restored to the list -- but only if they either (a) have Wikipedia articles of their own created, or (b) at least have a source provided to establish their notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well we'll see that, because there's no consensus on that.
 * As far as I can tell I would probably find a point of agreement with Metropolitan90 if I said that a foodstamps level person with no credentials does not create a notable kind of museum by putting a religious relic in his garage and calling it a museum. Right?  But I would go further than that since it seems to me that a person with no credentials who must have won the lottery yesterday would not really get any closer to creating a notable museum from if he did the same thing with a four story building or even if he also put pillars in front of it (but that would be a notable happening for very different reasons).  Now if most of us could agree on both points then what I would suggest is that a notable kind of museum is the sacrifice of more than one person but apart from that it doesn't seem to make much of a difference whether it is well known or otherwise.
 * Instead I would have thought that if it belonged to the establishment then then the most notable kind of it would seem to be the sort that could be likened to the Museum of Natural History in New York for example -- and even people who wouldn't pay it a cent would see that it is at least notable -- since they can tell that it cost many fortunes per year -- and many people go in there -- but if there might be another one where I wasn't looking then I would think that it could become just as notable from if it cost the whole lot of them about one cup of coffee a week each and by then it would seem to have some in common with Wikipedia.Patriot1423 (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Halad image.jpg