Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Man 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Third Man Museum

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Content not sourced. Appears to be using Wikipedia for marketing public relations. Copy is promotional in tone and not encyclopedic. The subject is questionable in its notability. Myotus (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Museums and libraries. Myotus (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. There appear to be good sources in the EL section; have you done proper WP:BEFORE? The Washington Post article checks out. Doesn't seem especially promotional (no more than the article on the museum the nominator works for, as he has very properly declared), nor un-encyclopaedic. Notability is decided by sources. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Washington post article you are referring to is an external link not a citation. The citations that are listed appear to be more promotional and provide little value to the article and appear to get more recognition for its connection to the film than the museum itself. It is important to point out that just because the film is notable does not mean the museum is notible WP:INHERITORG. Being in a national newspaper in such a manner means little for notability it simply means you have significant PR budget and/or staff. Beyond the puff marketing pieces there is almost nothing in the content of the articles listed showing notability.
 * The creator and main contributor of the page (and just about the only contributor of actual content on the museum), Gstrassg, created their account then created and built the page and has contributed to nothing else on Wikipedia. Gstrassg appears to be a the owner of the museum as "Gerhard Strassgschwandtner" is listed on the page (He has not properly declared his connection with the organization). This is a Conflict of interest. As far as the copy's tone, it is better than most promotional articles on Wikipedia and it can be easily corrected as Elemimele has noted, however, it still adds to the issue that the article is a PR piece and not notable. The questionability of the article was first pointing out by Legacypac in 2018 on the talk page who moved it from Draftspace to live. I do not agree with the decision to move it live. Due to the conflict of interest and lack of proper citations (at the very least) the article was not ready be moved to live.
 * My feeling is the page is not ready to be a Wikipedia article, it should be deleted or at least moved back to Draftspace WP:DRAFTIFY for other editors not connected to the organization contribute, have the proper citations, and come to a decision when it is ready to (if ever) to be added into Wikipedia. Myotus (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, before launching, or voting on, an Afd, you are supposed to consider not just whether the article as presented meets notability & other standards, but whether it could, especially with a small amount of work. It would have been less trouble, and much better, for you to have included some of the ELs as regular refs, rather than launch an Afd, bringing in other editors who probably have better things to be doing. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I have seen there are many Afd have have that potential. Many articles I have seen over the years sent into Afd through appear to be guided by bias, some by gender bias, some by racial bias, some by location, some by rural/urban bias, some by representation in sources, etc. Wikipedia is trying to work on that. And we need to do better. WP:BIAS Being located in a large Western city with access to multiple media outlets gives the Third Man Museum undue access coverage make what should be unnotable, notable. Keeping the article shows a location bias. Organizations need to be held to a higher standard in urban areas. Myotus (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but I disagree. IMHO I’ll explain why I disagree. First, deletion at AfD is not cleanup, per AfD, [if] the can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. Yes, it’s very biased and has a COI, but I did some c/e, it’s better (still bad though), and I’ve added the external links as refs. That WP has a gender bias is definitely a problem, see Gender bias on Wikipedia, it’s probably Anglocentric or European centric, though that’s partly because it’s an English one. But I am curious, how is this alone a deletion rationale? WP:BEFORE needs checking all refs, not just the ones currently in the article. Besides, you purpose that keeping the article shows a location bias, but how is this alone a good argument? Bias is an endemic problem, but just deleting one article doesn’t help much, so I disagree. VickKiang (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (a bit weakly); as well as the Washington Post article, it has write-ups of the "edited-but-prompted-by-press-releases" type in Bupapest Times, and unprompted passing mentions in the Financial Times and Guardian . The Telegraph and Daily Express also regard it as sufficiently worthy to mention in lists of things to do in Vienna. Given the competition for things to mention in a city as large and cultured as Vienna, this constitutes evidence it's reasonably notable. There are places where the tone is slightly promotional ("Specialists and generalists, they created the museum from scratch"), but AfD is not clean-up: the language can easily be copy-edited to ensure it's straightforward, factual writing. Elemimele (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep IMO the two refs, from The Daily Telegraph and The Washington Post are RS, independent, and secondary (The Guardian ref and this are too short to meet the significant requirements); still, I think it meets WP:GNG (2 or more are needed, it has 2), judging by the notability guidelines for organisations, IMO the press, which are well known newspaper of records, are secondary and independent. Therefore, I would vote for weak keep. See also my comment above, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per the above. Given that there are appearances in high-profile sources, I'm sure more will appear. — VersaceSpace  🌃 04:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Washington Post, and The Telegraph so passing WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2022 (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.