Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of music museums


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

List of music museums

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

totally unsourced list that fails WP:LISTN as the large majority of the entries do not have their own pages. it is impossible to even identify where most of the places are outside of the name of the town. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The concept of a list of museums focusing on music already exists as standalone articles in Dutch and German, from which this English article is a translation. It is certainly unfinished but it is not 'totally unsourced' - there are several footnotes to reliable source lists of music museums in specific countries. There ought to be at least one footnote per country subsection (in my opinion) but the lack of that for the time being is not sufficient to claim that it fails the notability criteria. Also, the fact that there are many redlinks is not inherently a reason to delete the article. Rather it is an invitation to create those articles too. Wittylama 14:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In the selection criteria for lists WP:CSC there are 3 types of lists a: Every entry meets the notability criteria and should either be blue or red linked, but if redlinked they have to be verifiably à member of the list b: Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria and these lists are better off in the main article which in this case would be Music museums. and c: Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. This list is none of the above and when nominated had no sources whatsoever. If we are going to consider it is the first kind of list then every single entry that is not blue linked must be sourced even if it is redlinked. Just because this kind of list exists on other wikiprojects is not a reason for it to exist here. Each wiki project has its own criteria and guidelines. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've just quickly looked for a footnote for the first items in the list which didn't [yet] have their own article (diff) - they were easy to find and I imagine that it would be a simple (if tedious) task to continue down the list. If I were to create the list myself I would probably have specified 'musical instrument museums' (and thereby excluding various halls of fame, those dedicated to individual bands/styles of music) and so that might be a way to narrow and thereby improve the scope of this article. I do agree that the article scope as it stands is vague and prone to being a hodge-podge collection of items. However, the fact that it's currently sub-optimal doesn't mean it has to be shot on sight. Wittylama 14:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * what do you think about drfatifying it until it is up to scratch? Dom from Paris (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know what thinks about that idea - as they are the one who translated the article into English and would, therefore presumably, be the one doing any work in draft mode. Wittylama 15:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what 'drfatifying' means, but I'll reply here soon. My list is very much OK now. Ymnes (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep First, to put it right, "large majority" in this application text ("large majority of the entries do not have their own pages") is not true . When I calculate it, it is circa half of them (55%). 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.
 * Another thing that is simply not true, is "it is impossible to even identify where most of the places are outside of the name of the town". In fact it is incredibly easy to find each of the museums. The internet is full of mentions of music museums. This list could very well have existed without any source, since one can verify the entries very easily.
 * When this application was done here, I was still busy building it up. Now I have completed it, the list complies very much to the rules Wikipedia has set in WP:LISTN. Let me cite:
 * "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"
 * 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. 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.
 * When I view what is the usual way how lists on Wikipedia are referenced with sources (I checked some dozens of lists in the Category:Lists of museums by country), than my list may be rewarded as a featured list. This is really a good list in comparison to other lists on Wikipedia.
 * I can find no reason at all, why this list should be deleted. I ask the applicant therefore to remove the nomination. Ymnes (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. A list doesn't need any blue links to be notable per WP:CSC bullet point 2. Szzuk (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CSC bullet point 2 says that one possible criterion that a Wikipedia list can be written to satisfy is "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles ...." That does not apply to this list, since many of the entries on the list are notable and have independent articles of their own. That said, see my recommendation below. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:CSC bullet point 1 says that another possible criterion that a Wikipedia list can be written to satisfy is "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. ..." Since many of the entries on this list are notable to have their own articles, I recommend that the list be kept, but I would support cleaning it up to remove the museums that neither have articles of their own nor have citations to help establish their notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2018 (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.