Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straits Chinese Jewellery 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. Davewild (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Straits Chinese Jewellery Museum

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

Fails WP:ORG. Another tiny non notable museum from malacca LibStar (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 10:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 11:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the book reference you've supplied doesn't even appear to even mention this jewellery museum, that's what happens when you recycle the same AfD argument over and over again. LibStar (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This museum is fairly new (2012) but it is easy to find more sources for this particular place such as this or that. As this is a significant cultural institution, we should certainly keep this too. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Significant cultural yet not covered in books? Virtualmalaysia is not a reliable source , it's an advertorial site set up to promote the Malaysian tourism industry. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like that source and want old media instead? It's just a matter of searching some more to find a substantial review in the South China Morning Post — a well-established newspaper that's over 100 years old. Q.E.D. — my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and you thought your first post was enough to convince people even though it contained no source relating to the Jewellery museum. LibStar (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much more information regarding the museum have been added, especially on its street address, detail exhibition stuffs, architecture information, its chinese name, history of the building & collection, opening hour etc. Now there are 12 reference sources already for the museum, including Malaysia's online newspaper The Star. Bare in mind that this museum is barely 3 years old, not hundreds of years like the Louvre or Forbidden City, of course the legit information regarding the museum is still not that abundant over the Internet. Nevertheless, this museum showcases the culture of the Peranakan Chinese in Malacca and South East Asia in general, which is really an important factor for the region's culture. Chongkian (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources Chongkian added from The Star and South China Morning Post, meets WP:GNG. Altamel (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2015 (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.