Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncle Robin's 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 merge to Robin Banerjee. There is clear consensus that this should not exist as a stand-alone article. Beyond that, opinion is pretty evenly split between redirect, merge, and delete, with no particularly compelling argument to make one of those stand out.

Numerically, there's a slight leaning towards delete, but I'm going to call this a merge, in deference to WP:ATD. Perhaps not everything needs to be merged, but I'll leave that up to whoever performs the merge. Leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Robin's Museum

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

Non-notable musem. Virtually zero hits on the search engines (except to this Wikipage). Current sourcing consists of... well, doesn't exist, actually. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Redirect~~ ~~to Robin Banerjee, on the basis organisations have a higher notability threhold than people. Though~~ there is this article in The Telegraph (India) reporting the announcement of the creation of the museum, ~~I don't think that is enough to support a separate Wikipedia article.~~ Sionk (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended my !vote to 'Keep' on the basis of the additional convincing sources found by AnjanBorah, in particular the lengthy article in The Hindu, smaller piece in The Sentinel and The Assam Travel Guide entry (which demonstrates the museum is a recognised tourist attraction). The one problem that will need resolving is the common name for the museum, but rather than repeatedly moving the page while this discussion is going on, it's a problem that can be addressed later. Sufficient reliable secondary coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Wikipedia is not based on # of search engine hits. It is a world encyclopedia with the objective to provide information on many subjects irrespective of whether the topic is highest or least rated on internet or has no electronic media coverage. There are multiple articles written about places lesser know to the world in general, e.g., Hum in Croatia however, that doesn't take away the credibility of listing it with a dedicated Wikipedia page. The page might be tagged as stub if appears too short (believe, that should've been done at the first place to encourage more edits to bring it to Wiki standards instead of marking it for deletion without any due diligence) however, in its current form and structure, the page is adequately informative. The updated page with sources shows that the place has been mentioned from time to time on various print media, including this article in The Hindu newspaper (a premier Indian broadsheet newspaper) and thus known (if not popular) to people in that geographic area. AnjanBorah (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Robin Banerjee. I don't think there is enough to warrant an article about this "museum", but a paragraph in Robin Banerjee would be appropriate. Merge instead of just redirect because there is info about the museum here that is not in the target article. MB 04:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A small personal collection, of no encyclopedic concern. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur this is simply a localized place, and there's nothing to suggest genuine substance for independent notability or that there exists signs of better. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because the museum is currently being reconstructed to make it appealing to a wider audience and will be reopened for public viewing as per this latest article, dated August 2016. Notability can be inferred from the various sources cited on the page (including articles from national broadsheet newspapers), in addition to the links provided here. Furthermore, the biographical page on Robin Banerjee can't be clubbed with this place which is now getting reconstructed to become a tourist attraction, unbeknown to you, but not to the citizens of the region, else there wouldn't have been any print media coverage. And the argument that it is a small collection is as insubstantial as the # of search engine hits on the basis of which this deletion has been proposed by the initiator in the first place. Collection how big or small or the # of search engine hits can't be a determining factor to consider eligibility of a page when it doesn't violate any wikipedia policies. If the editors feel that only topics that have high media coverage or relate to places of grandeur are fit to be on wikipedia then clearly, the whole concept of constructive editing has fallen apart. I would still reemphasise that the criterion for nominating the article for deletion just based on search engine hits is illegitimate to begin with, and hence, the page should be reinstated so that with time more information from various other sources could be incorporated so that it evolves in the due course. AnjanBorah (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out your second 'Keep' vote because, while you are welcome to comment as many times as you like in a discussion, you should only 'vote' once. Sionk (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robin_Banerjee#Uncle_Robin.27s_Museum or delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide to have an article on every travel attraction. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sionk for the pointer, noted. I stand by my proposition to retain this article as the place has been mentioned in different newspapers, sufficient to support it as an independent article, thereby the 'not-notable' as stated by Sportsfan 1234 can be unambiguously ruled out. The argument that the place can't have a separate article based on # of search engine hits can't be a premise for any conclusion, Wikipedia can include topics supported with multiple sources irrespective of electronic or print media coverage. The Telegraph article that you mentioned, states preservation of this site by DoNER Ministry, Govt. of India in, besides reconstruction of the building as per the other The Sentinel article stated earlier. The page warrants enough sources to stand as an independent write-up, thus should be retained.
K.e.coffman, point is not to promote Wikipedia as a Travel Guide, clearly it isn't, but a place that has been taken up by Government Ministry for preservation, besides current reconstruction to open it up for general public and that's being written about in various newspapers (enough sources here and on the relevant page), it is worthy enough to be an independent article. National broadsheet newspapers - The Telegraph, The Hindu, in addition to The Assam Travel Guide entry qualify the article to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP norms as stated by Sionk. AnjanBorah (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Robin Banerjee. The articles cited lean heavily on the notability of Banerjee as owner/founder. The museum on its own has little or no notability.Glendoremus (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Robin Banerjee, with no prejudice to an independent article at some future date if museum thrives and attracts coverage. At present, the coverage has been minor, sufficient to make WP:PRESERVE a significan tfactor, but I think that a redirect preserving the sources is the most efficient way to retain the useful information.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:56, 20 January 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.