Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toy Museum (Malacca)


 * 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Toy Museum (Malacca)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ORG. A tiny museum, only primary sources provided LibStar (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Malacca is a historic place with lots of museums. These are notable, being documented in detail in sources such as Melaka History and Heritage in Museums.  There may be some scope for merger, especially for those which are housed in the same building complex but, per our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, this would not be done by deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * you've recycled this same argument in various afds but fail to show in-depth coverage about this specific museum. WP:PRESERVE does not override if an article is not notable. LibStar (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * the book reference you've supplied doesn't even appear to even mention this toy museum, that's what happens when you recycle the same AfD argument over and over again. LibStar (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The book is a general survey of Malacca's museums and so was a good starting point for the numerous identical AFDs about these topics. For a detailed source about this particular place see The Brunei Times.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - A search online finds no reliable sources supporting notability. Neither reference in the article is authoritative.--Rpclod (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Added another 2 reference from Utusan Online and Kosmo (in Malay language). Added its website link, opening time, Facebook page, museum owner. More info was added on its introductory description, info of it being the 2nd toy museum in Malaysia after the one in Penang, total number of toy figures displayed, more history of its original establishment date & its relocation to its current location. Added to another 2 Wikipedia articles category based on its establishment year. Chongkian (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * adding article categories, opening time and Facebook page has no bearing on notability. LibStar (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the sources this would not qualify as reliable source as it is merely hosting a rather amateur brochure of the museum. LibStar (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I found these two sources from online news websites, which I believe demonstrate significant coverage. Altamel (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added more information of its history and exhibitions. The museum interior photo also has been added. Chongkian (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * photos do not add to notability. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - for reasons given by LibStar and Rpclod. Insufficient independent RS.Pincrete (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep struck double vote, see below - added another 2 references from myMetro online newspaper (Malay language) and Wisata Malaysia (Indonesian language). Chongkian (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Chongkian, per WP:AFDFORMAT: "do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." Please delete your duplicate !votes.--Rpclod (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @Pincrete: Please explain your !vote. Why are the two references I pointed out insufficient? Altamel (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Altamel, what is difficult to understand? Two references is not very many, and only one is new (the other is Andrew Davidson's).Pincrete (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your expedient reply.According to the timestamps, I mentioned the Brunei Times on July 12 and Andrew Davidson mentioned it on July 19. But furthermore, Chongkian added two references to Kosmo Online and Utusan. That's four references, and I think that should be enough. WP:SIGCOV says there is no fixed number of sources needed, only specifying that it should be "multiple" sources, so I don't see why four should not suffice. Altamel (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2015 (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.