Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Pavilion & Museums, Brighton & Hove collections


 * 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   merge to Brighton Museum & Art Gallery. Cirt (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Royal Pavilion &amp; Museums, Brighton &amp; Hove collections

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Basically I'm questioning this subject's notability, but also whether it repeats other articles (i.e. has content better placed elsewhere). There are articles on Brighton, on Hove, and on Brighton and Hove, the conjoined city, which can hold summaries of the city's museums. Linked from there are specific articles on the more notable museums such as the Royal Pavilion and – most relevantly – Brighton Museum & Art Gallery. Is there really a need to have an article which is essentially a list of their contents and collections? These are a subject for the institutions' own web pages, and in some cases are somewhat transient. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 10:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the museum(s) have items in their collection that are of particular interest or make that museum of particular importance, this should be mentioned in the article about the museum. I don't see a separate article about the collection as justified here, although there may be some content that can usefully be merged to the other article(s). Perhaps a merge to Brighton Museum & Art Gallery followed by a trim would be the best approach.--Michig (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * delete - redundant as pointed out by the nominator - Whpq (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep apparently a major museum. The details of course will be on the museum's webpages, but there's no reason why highlights shouldn't be listed here--that does not make it a directory. An exhaustive catalog of everything they own would be another matter. We have articles on all significant museums and one of the things they say or ought to say is some idea of what's in them.  I am not sure about the exact relationship to Brighton Museum and Art Gallery, but if they are the same, the articles should be merged.      DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: part of the problem is that the relationship between "Brighton Museum and Art Gallery", and "Royal Pavilion & Museums, Brighton & Hove", which is being presented as some sort of unspecified organisation, is unsourced/unreferenced (i.e. what is the nature of the organisation, or is it simply an administrative term?). A separate article, titled just "Royal Pavilion & Museums, Brighton & Hove" was PRODded and deleted for this reason. (The present article was also PRODded and the PROD removed along with a general cleanup which frustratingly added nothing except cleanliness ;) And to refine an over-specific word in my original nomination, for "their own webpages", please also read "their own articles in WP". – Kieran T  (' talk ') 15:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are several museums in and around Brighton, two of which are Brighton Museum & Art Gallery (housed on the same site as the Royal Pavillion) and the Royal Pavillion. The article under discussion describes parts of the collections of several museums including the aforementioned two, Hove Museum & Art Gallery, and others. As far as I am aware, the museums in question house their exhibits on a permanent or semi-permanent basis, so it would be much better to describe the more notable aspects of the individual collections in the articles about each museum. The article is currently fairly useless to the reader who may wish to visit Brighton to see some of these items.--Michig (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The unspecified organisation does indeed have the title Royal Pavilion, Museums and Libraries or something like that. It is merely the relevant department of the City Council which runs the Pavilion (not 'Pavillion') and the Brighton museum, Hove museum and others.  See http://www.virtualmuseum.info/
 * Therefore the information presented in this article would be better included in the relevant articles with perhaps a cross reference from 'Brighton and Hove Museums' as the present title is unlikely to ever be a search term.Sussexonian (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge relevant material to Brighton Museum & Art Gallery, to the "Museums" section of Brighton (where several of the museums, such as the Booth Museum of Natural History, are mentioned), to the "Hove Museum and Art Gallery" section of Hove, and wherever else it might fit. Michig seems to be correct that these museums are separate institutions, though there may be some all-embracing administrative or promotional organization; and descriptions of their holdings are best treated separately. Since there seem to be only a couple of substantive contributors to this article, attribution can be handled by the merges' edit summaries' pointing to the articles' talk pages, where the specific contributors and contributions can be detailed. Then this article can be deleted. Deor (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per Deor. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Brighton Museum & Art Gallery. That article has a "Collections" section, which appears to refer to the holdings of the art gallery only.  Accordingly, sections on the museum collections would fit well.  However, some of the introductory material in the taget article on the history of the Pavilion would be better merged into the article on the Royal Pavilion, if it is not there already.  The whole group of articles needs attention by some one living in that area, with local knowledge of the subject.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As the discussion above indicates, much of the collection material treated in this article is held at the Booth Museum of Natural History, the Brighton Toy and Model Museum, the Hove Museum and Art Gallery, and various other museums than the Brighton Museum & Art Gallery. Merging material only to Brighton Museum & Art Gallery would result in the loss of information that could be used to expand other articles/sections and, if it were done indiscriminately, could lead to the inclusion of incorrect or misleading information in that article. Deor (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not have the knowledge to know how the merge should be done. You may be right in saying that there should be multiple merge targets.  My point is merely that the right solution is to merge the material, rather than a plain delete.  I am not suggesting that the resultant redirect need necessarily be kept.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2009 (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.