Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodhall Spa Cottage 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. There was a clear consensus for keep. Delete supporters made the argument that there were "virtually zero in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources" while Keep supporters rebutted that argument by pointing out what they claimed to be in-depth coverage. Delete supporters offered surrebuttal by stating that the arguments of Keep supporters amounted to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that the coverage found was not WP:SIGCOV. Keep supporters, in turn, provided a contra-surrebuttal by claiming further sources were available offline that were significant. The contra-surrebuttal appeared to satisfy one of the two primary Keep critics. (non-admin closure) Chetsford (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Woodhall Spa Cottage Museum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Local museum with virtually zero in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. Current sourcing includes 3 dead links and a generic link to the county's tourism site. Even the external link to the museum's website is incorrect. Fails as per WP:GEOFEAT.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Museums tend to last a long time and serve as a keeper of history and culture. I have no issue with any page about a legitimate museum and there is no benefit to our readers in excluding information about these important parts of the community infrastructure. Editing can fix any other issues. Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep A very quick search of Google books shows this museum is mentioned in several books, only two of which are travel guides. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - neither of the above !votes is based on actual policies. The first is an example of WP:ILIKEIT, while the second basically confirms that this museum is not notable, as there is no in-depth coverage, only mentions and listings.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The delete rational is basically IDONTLIKEIT. Mention in travel guides justifies a short page BTW. No harm has been shown here. If you really hate the page, I suggest merging it with the town and redirecting, but I see no harm in keeping it. Legacypac (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you feel that not meeting WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT is IDONTLIKEIT. Perhaps you should re-read those policies. Can you point to the policy guideline to back up your incorrect statement that mention in travel guides justifies a short page? That's in direct contradiction of actual policies. Onel 5969  TT me 16:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My statement is correct because published travel guides are researched reliable sources. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, Unfortunately looking at the gbooks search the books listed appear to be by a local historian, published by the museum and/or directory entries. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC) \
 * Keep buildings sufficiently beloved to become museums tend to be notable and, unsurprisingly, even a quick gNews search beings up sources . I added an article about a big grant this Museum got form the lottery fund.  there were more articles in the news archive search; sources do exist. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Evidently some people find it notable. 147 reviews on TripAdvisor is a lot for a smaller museum. Legacypac (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment... aaaand again, neither of those are actual policies... there are sources, but nothing in-depth... and 147 out of 4 billion people on the planet find it worth commenting on. Wow.   Onel 5969  TT me 00:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll cite GNG. Perhaps since only one person on the planet is in favor of deletion we can close this and move on? :) Legacypac (talk)
 * User:onel5969 I added a little of the coverage in local newspapers found in news archives. And note that our page on Richard Adolphus Came, the architect who designed Woodall Spa, cites this museum as a source.  I know it looked bad when you nominated it, but there really seems to be notability here.  cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks - but I'm still not seeing how it passes GNG.  Using the criteria listed by several editors here, every bar and restaurant in every city in the world would deserve a Wikipedia article, since local coverage can almost always be found. Museums, being organizations, also fall under WP:ORGDEPTH, which is not met in this case. Regardless, thanks for your improvements to the article.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:onel5969 Would you be willing to take another look, at material I have now added about the 1887 building? It should meet your sourcing standards.

E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi - I have been. Still not seeing anything more than trivial mentions. Even the book, while I can't see it, appears to be a simple listing of a building built using a particular type of methodology. I think it's an interesting piece, made much better now than when it first appeared in the mainspace, but there is not the in-depth coverage needed to meet WP:GNG, and since it is an organization, it nowhere comes close to meeting WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel 5969  TT me 14:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per Legacypac. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - what was meant to be the significance in this discussion of Even the external link to the museum's website is incorrect? I don't get it. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi - That the article was in such woeful shape initially that it didn't even have the correct link to the Museum's website.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 02:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the link, which you could have done easier than complaining about it. Legacypac (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

In the article: In my search I found so far Considering we do not have a guideline nor policy that makes museums presumably notable, this would be a clear delete for me. But the state of the discussion says otherwise. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment (would be a vote, but there is no point here to vote further), While in any other case this should have been closed as a clear keep consensus, the discussion of it is really, really, REALLY poor, consisting of WP:ILIKEIT, saying but not showing which books does it have significant coverage in (per WP:SIGCOV), per XYZ person....jeez. In any case, this will surely not be deleted and would at best be closed as no consensus for another discussion, but I wanted to discuss the sources by an analysis.
 * 1. https://web.archive.org/web/20110725215230/http://www.visitlincolnshire.com/site/things-to-do/woodhall-spa-cottage-museum-p15831 is a proper link for it, but still not a secondary source.
 * 2. Locked behind an account creation that is not even visible how to do it (could be only instituitions bound). I am certainly not going to make an account just to view an article that may be or not be a WP:SIGCOV, nor will a regular Wiki reader. Anyone can easily just post links from ProQuest and slap it a reference tag regardless of how much it covers the subject this way.
 * 3. https://www.hlf.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/press-releases/woodhall-spa-cottage-museum-wins-heritage-lottery-fund-award is a proper link, WP:ROUTINE winning of Heritage Lottery Fund Award, which itself is not notable.
 * 4 and *5 Primary sources
 * 6 https://web.archive.org/web/20100128133436/http://www.e-lindsey.gov.uk:80/Council+and+democracy/website/contact+us/woodhall+spa.htm is a proper link, just a information and contact listing
 * 7 and *8 Locked being an account creation. Same as *2
 * 1 https://books.google.rs/books?id=MLsSDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA281&lpg=PA281&dq=Woodhall+Spa+Cottage+Museum&source=bl&ots=StWUELaQaO&sig=kHwMhPTClcDWGDUPTSFjPO5mi4o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjasI_ZzuDfAhU2AxAIHQDfAlg4MhDoATAFegQIEBAB#v=onepage&q=Woodhall%20Spa%20Cottage%20Museum&f=false Passing mention
 * 2 https://www.horncastlenews.co.uk/whats-on/crafty-cards-on-offer-at-woodhall-spa-cottage-museum-1-6619951 PR announcement, has even the e-mail at the end
 * 3 https://www.horncastlenews.co.uk/whats-on/arts/victorian-christmas-at-woodhall-spa-cottage-museum-1-8256334 another WP:ROUTINE annoucemnt that is not a WP:SIGCOV
 * 4 https://petwoodblog.wordpress.com/2017/07/17/august-at-the-woodhall-spa-cottage-museum/ Blog, not a reliable secondary source.
 * 5 http://mdem.org.uk/new-lease-life-cottage-museum-woodhall-spa/ another PR coverage that is not a WP:SIGCOV of the subject.
 * Comment - Thank you for your in-depth analysis.  AfD discussions are not votes, and one would hope that the closing admin/NAC would understand your point above.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 12:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:HEYMANN the building turns out to be notable due to the fact that it is made of Corrugated galvanised iron produced by Boulton & Paul Ltd. Sourced all of this to a beautifully done work of architecture history:  Mornement, Adam; Holloway, Simon (2007). Corrugated Iron: Building on the Frontier. W. W. Norton & Company. Note that the museum opened on the centennial of the erection of the building, and that it was built to house two employees of the Spa corporation that built the town.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that searching: "cottage museum"  "woodhall spa" brings up sources that "woodhall spa cottage museum" fails to locate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment considering that book https://books.google.rs/books?id=Km8Xc8UXXv4C&dq=Corrugated+Iron:+Building+on+the+Frontier&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9t93_5ODfAhUkw4sKHbgEDhcQ6AEIKTAA does not have a preview, how can we verify any info here though? As it stands now to me, still does not change my opinion until a content of the book can be verified. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF. The page in the book was visible in gBooks.  And I read the section on this building. The book, which was well reviewed in scholarly journals, is widely owned by libraries and widely cited. I have also added information on the Wields and the business they ran found in a newspaper article that I had previously added "Delight at the Museum."   Many articles come up in news archive searches (I ran a Proquest search, but I'm sure newspapers.com has similar,) from which the article can be expanded. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the sources found. (WP:OFFLINE reminds us to "to assume good faith for the user who cited the offline source", also for WP:PAYWALL.) E.M.Gregory, in your recent edits, is "The cottage was built by John and Mary, employees of Woodhull Spa" meant to read "John and Mary Wield"? I have found only a few sources, though they do contain some info not yet in the article. The Ancient Monuments Society Newsletter (2010/01) gives info about the Heritage Lottery Fund awards, and says that the corrugated iron building was the home of John Wield "whose family provided donkey-drawn bath chairs to carry people between the hotels and spa baths at Woodhall." (The Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology also has info about that: .) Apart from that, Lincolnshire Life magazine has a few paras about the cottage museum . An article in Lincolnshire History & Archaeology in 2000 includes a photo by John Wield showing the construction of a well, with oak rings as stagings  - I had wondered if his photos were significant outside Woodhall Spa, but that is the only instance I've found so far of them being cited. Lincolnshire Today had an article in 2012 called 'Spa for the Course', which has more info about the building (apparently it was erected on a different site in 1884, then moved to the present site in 1887) and about the removal of buildings damaged by arsonists (somewhere I read that one was the donkeys stables, a great pity). RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Per RebeccaGreen findings in Lincolnshire Today, Lincolnshire Life, The Ancient Monuments Society Newsletter, passes WP:GNG now. and   I am assuming good faith as always, but that does not mean I will be convinced regarding notability, if that makes sense? That is not assuming bad faith at all in my opinion. Yes, WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE sources can count, but I cannot judge whether it counts towards WP:GNG on something I can't see. I hope you understand me in what I am trying to say. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment update Seems that the Google Book preview of "Corrugated Iron: Building on the Frontier" is not allowed in my country (or even maybe Europe) for some odd reason. So I will trust E.M Gregory on this, especially since a lot of content is used for that citation alone. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.