Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia Architecture 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 keep. bd2412 T 22:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Malaysia Architecture Museum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:ORG. malaysian article has only 1 primary source. 2 gnews hits and gbooks reveals only directory listings. Despite the fancy name, just looks like a museum in a converted house. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously, as for other museum articles at AFD recently. As previously noted, museums are public attractions, and in practice they are KEPT at AFD.  I resent, in advance, commentary upon my !vote.  :*About specific sources, Google book hits include numerous guidebooks (which are fine as sources, though I understand in advance that the deletion nominator disagrees), and seems to include "Museums of Southeast Asia", Iola Lenzi, Archipelago Press, 2004 - Ming qi - 205 pages, although I cannot see specific pages within that source.
 * Please be civil, please don't harass participants at AFD. -- do  ncr  am  06:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am always civil, " I resent, in advance, commentary upon my !vote", "don't harass participants" is not a civil nor good faith response.nor is telling me how you did in another AfD that I am not allowed to add further comment. AfDs are discussions not, closed maximum 1 edit per AfD. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As previously noted, museums are public attractions, and in practice they are KEPT at AFD. is a false statement and falsely arguing for inherent notability of museums. There is no such notability guideline. Whilst many museums are notable, some have been deleted Articles for deletion/Scandinavian collage museum [which doncram recently participated in but conveniently forgets the result], Articles for deletion/Matthias Rath Museum, Articles for deletion/Fenerbahçe Museum , Articles for deletion/Texas Railroad Museum (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Serbian American Museum St. Sava. please do not say all museums are notable. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hehe, relax do  ncr  am . I'm used to this AfD debate with LibStar, with around 30 of my articles got deleted already ~ :P. Yes, it does cause a sudden heart attack once it is AfD-flagged. But at least it helps remind you to improve some of your article to be more notable for Wikipedia standard. Nevertheless, actually it is not us who didn't wanna write it completely to make it fully notable. But sometimes I do realize the available online information for some articles are very limited, especially in some countries where digitization are not yet a common practice. Cheers ;) Chongkian (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, 5 more references have been added (including one from online news), add more history, add exhibition section, add opening time, add management in the infobox, add more links in the article body. This museum is the government-owned museum (more notable), not privately owned (which is generally less notable). I have added this article also in WikiProject Museum (at the talk page). The notability of this museum is to show the architectural style of Malaysia (then Malaya) under the Dutch colonial rule. Chongkian (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * appreciate you making a genuine effort to find sources, not just say all museums are notable. cheers LibStar (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per meeting WP:GNG on assumed WP:INHERENT grounds and on the strength of the nom not speaking Malay and per do s comments regarding guidebooks. I also see no gain to Wikipedia from deleting this article, which is not some promotional cruft, as it is in fact a non-profit governmental subject.  &Alpha; Guy into B&omicron;&omicron;ks &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  14:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * the fact I do not speak Malay is not relevant, secondly doncram actually said he couldn't see the one source he found. lastly, there is no inherent notability of non profit government subject. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * in fact it gets 1 gnews hit for its name in Malay. therefore fails WP:GNG. your arguments are WP:ITSNOTABLE without evidence of meeting WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that any Malay newspapers published on the web, my assertion is that a nationally relevant museum administered by the government is going to be notable, I am assuming notability is met on reasonable grounds per WP:OFFLINE and WP:INHERENT I just don't have the sources to hand. You are obviously assuming otherwise, that is fine, it is just a different opinion. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  08:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * you are false asserting notability the basis of WP:MUSTBESOURCES. gnews covers malay newspapers plus also Malaysia's biggest english language newspaper the Straits Times.  LibStar (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * please list the offline significant coverage you are referring to. LibStar (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

there is no inherent notability of museums even government run ones. No notability guideline grants that. LibStar (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, my first sources are:

Note there are various searches to gain information for this museum: Muzium Seni Bina, Malacca architectural museum, Department of Museums Malaysia, Muzium Seni Bina Malaysia, Malaysia Architecture Museum, Architecture Museum Melaka, sejarah muzium seni bina melaka. etc. there is also another wikipedia rticle about it with less information on the MS wikipedia. 

1. pangea guides would not qualify as a reliable source. it simply lifts content from wikivoyage "Pangea Guides reuses, corrects and modifies open content from -Wikivoyage" 2 is from melakacool.com a promotional Site for tourism in melaka 3 and 5 are primary sources. 4 looks like an advertorial site. 6 is one paragraph in a longer article about multiple attractions. 7 is ludricous as a source. it's simply about a contractor who submitted fake invoices. adds zero notability. the sum total of these 7 is that WP:GNG is completely not satisfied. LibStar (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * where are also the offline sources you refer to? or did you just mention WP:OFFLINE without any evidence? LibStar (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course I did:)  But seriously no the sources are in Malaysia, I doubt they will get back to me this year if i ask them, better just recreate the page if/when more sources are available.  &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  13:29, 11 September 2017 (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.