Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hong Kong Correctional Services 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong Correctional Services Museum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:ORG. museums are not inherently notable. unreferenced for 8 years except for its own website. looks like a travel advert given the article tells us what buses to catch there. a search indicates 1 line mentions in tourist books and museum listings. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Museums are inherently notable, being places devoted to the collection and curation of historical knowledge in which we are especially interested. They put the M in GLAM and the worst case for any stubby entry would always be that we consolidate into some list of specialist museums and/or an article about the locality. The only reason to delete would be a hoax or other gross misrepresentation and that's not the case here. Andrew (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * museums are not inherently notable, there is no WP guideline which says that. Secondly some museum articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please list some examples of museums which have been deleted — I will then see about restoring them. Andrew (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you link to the guideline or policy that says all museums are inherently notable? WikiProject Museums disagrees with you, and they actively advocate the deletion of non-notable museums. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The relevant policies here are WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Being policies, these are stronger than guidelines, which in the case of notability, are mostly too vague and subjective to be useful. Andrew (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither of these policies state museums are inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * basically you are saying WP:ITSNOTABLE with not supplying any sources to show WP:ORG or GNG is met. LibStar (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I found this (translation).  I can't read a single word of it, but the Google translation makes it look relevant.  It's from The Epoch Times, which is apparently a reliable source.  Also, there's this (translation), which looks like a press release from Xinhua News Agency. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't used the Chinese sources your research identified because they are a bit general. I will find others if necessary but it should be OK with the English ones. 06:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's OK. I wasn't sure if they were 100% relevant or not.  I don't trust machine translations, and I was hoping a native speaker would comment on them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Three reliably source references added to establish notability. Philg88 ♦talk 16:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I wish I could find the guideline that says "unreferenced for 8 years" was a deletion criteria. At any rate, keep, as sources have been added !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Mississippi (talk • contribs) 01:58, 29 May 2014‎


 * Keep, notable and well-linked from other pages on Wikipedia. Citobun (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, as museums are by default notable subjects, and many references can be found. Epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * museums are not inherently notable, this has been discussed above. LibStar (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.