Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Museo de Sabanero

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museo de Sabanero

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. Nothing in gnews. Only a travel guide provided as a source. No corresponding Spanish article. LibStar (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a public attraction. Museums, except the most obscure private ones not regularly open, art going to be Wikipedia-notable. There may be a string of odd AFDs going on. At another museum afd recently, the nominator there (whether same editor or not) bizarrely also claimed google news is the right way to tell if a museum is notable, which is nonsense. Actually we should hope museums are not in the news for a fire or scandal; most are not. Wp:BEFORE has not been performed here. --do ncr am 18:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museums are not inherently notable. Again you provide zero reasoning not sources to establish notability. You're saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it was Libstar who nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia Youth Museum, which closed no consensus to delete, who bizarrely searched only in Google News. wp:BEFORE. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Also you don't have to reply to every comment that does not agree with you. --do ncr am 23:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we are here to discuss how this museum meets notability guidelines, not the notability of other articles. You have failed to do this. You have not deterred me in fact given me more motivation to find non notable examples. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I searched under multiple terms and the best I can find is this book source which is not enough to show notability. SL93 (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: Per new sources. SL93 (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have found and added multiple sources to the article, along with the book that SL93 uncovered. The combined weight of these sources demonstrates significant coverage, and therefore notability. Please keep in mind that sources for museum articles may not be visible in an initial search, especially if the institution is in a foreign country. Half of the sources I found were in Spanish. There's an even greater need for extensive searching in foreign AfDs because of the language barrier, and because Google just doesn't index results from non-Anglophone countries that well. Altamel (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following Altamel's edits. Google news isn't always be all/end all, especially when there are language issues to consider. StarM 02:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.