Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Museumand

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Emmentalist (talk | contribs) at 13:40, 14 March 2024 (→‎AfD discussion so far). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Museumand

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Museumand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have nominated the article 'Museumand' for deletion. The creator disagrees so I have not treated it as non-controversial or simple. There is a discussion at the article's Talk page. In my opinion, the article fails on WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliabilesources and WP:WhatWikipediaisnot. In summary, the article describes an ostensibly extant museum and group of which there is insufficient evidence of existence, notability, verifiability or reliability. I will take no further part in the discussion. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Caribbean. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as the article creator I have expanded and updated this article substantially since Eastmain Emmentalist '(edited to correct name of prposer PamD 17:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)) expressed their concerns yesterday, and I believe that Museumand is a notable organisation as shown by their current exhibition at the Bank of England Museum and the one last year at Nottingham Castle, their podcast chosen as "best of the week" by The Guardian, and their other activities. Yes, their web site is currently displaying "Maintenance", but the fact that Google searches are still returning both the home page and many subpages suggests that the website and organisatiion have been alive and well in the very recent past: I have provided archived links to get past this, probably temporary, problem. Even if it was to turn out that the organisation is now defunct, that would not affect its notability: Wikipedia records history as well as the present.[reply]
The nominator, in talk page discussion, accused me of WP:OR because I found a catalogue entry for the book to verify it's existence: not my understanding of OR. They also appeared to suggest I was part of a PR operation for Museumand: my only connection with it is that I heard about it (almost certainly on BBC Radio 4, very likely on Woman's Hour) thought it sounded Notable, and created the article. I am not a paid editor and have no COI. PamD 14:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the nominator and so will not take part in the keep/delete discussion. However, for clarity I should reply to the comments above. In my comments at the talk page I write; "I absolutely presume that the Wikipedia article was created in good faith". My reference to WP:WWIN is instead to the way PR is designed to enter discourse and is often repeated by others in good faith. If I felt that WP:COI applied, I would have said that. As it happens, I do think searching for an obscure catalogue entry in a city library does likely constitute OR. Finally, When I nominated this article for AfD I made it clear that I was not using one of the simpler procedures since the article originator disagreed. It does not seem quite right, to me, that the article originator should now vote on their own article. But there it is. I appreciate, of course, that the final decision will not simply be a matter of adding up the votes. I'll leave it at that. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re searching for an obscure catalogue entry in a city library does likely constitute OR: the existence of the book was queried, I looked it up in Library Hub Discover, the union catalogue of most UK libraries, and found a record for it. WP:OR is defined as "original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists". Is it suggested that Leeds City Library's catalogue is unreliable? PamD 09:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not taking any position as to notability but @Emmentalist you're not quite correct on two elements. The author is welcome and encouraged to participate at AfD, and OR has nothing to do with researching/verifying the existence of a book via a library catalogue. As nominator, you don't !vote because your nomination is considered a vote for deletion in itself but you're otherwise welcome and encouraged to participate as well. Star Mississippi 14:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for this, @Star Mississippi Very helpful and educative point very much taken! I don't think such a book exists, by the way. As you imply, my main arguments relate not to whether a pseudo-book exists on one local authority library catalogue but to the separate issues of sufficient and verifiable coverage. Emmentalist (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Emmentalist Note this which says "The exhibition ... is accompanied by a book of the same title (available for sale at the Castle shop). You really don't think it exists? PamD 23:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, @PamDI take @Star Mississippi's point. Let me make this one appeal to commonsense and goodwill. There is no doubt in my mind that two people identifiable on some websites, who call themselves Museumand, have written some blogposts and contributed to several institutions' displays on the UK's Windrush generation. I have argued here and at the Talkpage that this is most creditable but not sufficient of itself for WP:Notability and does not satisfy other WP policies. There is nothing to stop you revisiting Museumand in future so see if things have changed. I am also concerned, as a subsidiary point, that the article seeks to further claims of founding a national museum when they do not seem true in any substantive sense (for example, a museum is literally defined everywhere as a building with a large variety visitable exhibits. A 'museum without walls' is a catchphrase, not a museum). I am not super-keen to get into a theological debate about what constitutes a book/pamphlet/pseudo-book, to be honest. I suspect that some combination of ISBN number, publisher, author, etc, might be in order. The main thing here is that a statement in a website that something is available somewhere (but where there is no other evidence of that something's availability in book form) is not of itself sufficiently notable evidence of existence. At root, my argument is simply based upon the policies laid out earlier. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re a museum is literally defined everywhere as a building: not so, nowadays. See Virtual museum. PamD 17:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, @PamD. I took a look. You'll see there's a need for verification at that article. In the end, it seems to simply re-badge other things (databases, museum enhancements, etc) as museums in themselves. I think there's a profound epistemological question in play there. What next? I create a 'virtual' display around a horse and it's actually a kind of horse? Tbh, I'll leave that to others. :-) Defo nice chatting, though! Emmentalist (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Emmentalist You might think that a choir is a group of people who sing together in one place: but a Virtual choir can produce some amazing performances without ever meeting each other, or the conductor or the sound engineers. Times change. PamD 21:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting point @PamD. Thinking now........... Emmentalist (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Emmentalist I saw the above comment because this page is on my watchlist, but your "ping" didn't work because a ping has to be added in an edit which includes a signature, and your two-step process won't have had that effect. The trick is to add a new or replacement signature if you add a ping, or a second ping, as an afterthought or correction. There's always something new to learn about editing. PamD 22:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for this. Noted! I wondered why it looked wrong. Clearly, I have a lot to learn. And, frankly, not just about Wikipedia. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article has been expanded today with well-sourced content about Museumand's collaborations with a range of organisations over several years. PamD 14:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 Note that Museumand's website, which recently reported "undergoing maintenance" or some similar term, now says "We'll be back soon". PamD 14:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The comments above by the article's originator don't change things at all. The WP:GNG policies, and all the others referred to at the deletion nomination are clear and none of these new references satisfy them. The website status has no bearing on this discussion at all. For completeness, the new references are as follows:
    1. An archived webpage with no verifiable status and no publisher.
    2. A 2015 article from the webpage of a local media outlet serving Nottingham which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand (i.e. the title of the Wikipedia article).
    3. An archived webpage with no verifiable status. It appears to be a page from the Museumand website, which in turn has been unavailable since 2022 at the latest.
    4 and 5. Undated University-branded webpages which each make a reference to Museumand.
    6. A 2018 book title which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand.
    7. An undated Nottingham local history webpage which refers to Museumand.
    8. A 2018 BBC webpage which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand.
    9. A 2019 "Feast" website article which refers to Museumand.
    10. A 2021 University website which refers to Museumand in an event date.
    11. A 2020 webpage with no verifiable status (and no publisher which describes in detail the only two people ever associated with Museumand in any resource.
    12. A website with no verifiable status which refers to Museumand.
    13. A Hull news website which refers to Museumand.
    14. A website describing Nottingham Castle which refers to Museumand.
    15. A Nottingham City Council website which refers to Museumand.
    16. A PR company website which refers to Museumand.
    17. A Guardian webpage describing a podcasts which refers to the presenters of one as linked to Museumand.
    18. Webpage descriptor and link to podcast at 17 (above).
    19. A webpage which refers to Museumand.
    20. A blog written by the owners of Museumand, related to 19 (above).
    21. A 2020 blogpage (archived from the inaccessible Museumand website?) written by one of the Museumand owners.
    22. Ditto 21 (although some of the text appears unavailable).
    As has already been said at nomination, and noted by one editor who recommended deletion, the Guardian reference to a podcast related to the mother and daughter who appear to own Museumand might, if supported elsewhere, satisfy WP:GNG, but it is not supported; nothing else listed here reflects WP:GNG acceptable sources. The article fails on all the policies referred to at the nomination.
    No-one is questioning that two people in Nottingham have done excellent and worthy work in helping local Nottingham Museums and universities, and a couple further afield, mount displays; but Museumand is simply not a notable entity (indeed there is little evidence that it presently exists) which justifies a Wikipedia article. I have made the effort here to flag this all not to be mean, quite the contrary, but simply to uphold Wikipedia policies. It would be helpful if editors who make comments here do also make a delete/keep recommendation as this discussion already has too much from me and the originator and is on its final re-list. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Emmentalist, a few of your observations are made because the source does not mention Museumand by name. Didn't you read the discussion, including my post above, before making them? Until recently this was known as the National Caribbean Heritage Museum. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, @Phil Bridger. Of course I read the discussion, including your comment. Here is my reply: 1. The title of the article is "Museumand". It is clearly relevant if a reference does not mention that name. 2. I have gone to a great deal of effort to lay out how and why the article does not satisfy a number of WP policies, including WP:Notability. That includes following through on your suggestions of places to look for valid and reliable references. Can I just ask politely if you have read my fulsome comments?I appreciate that you have made the effort to make a brief comment here, but tbh it would be more useful if you took a view on delete/keep. If you feel that it should be retained, you simply have to say that you feel the references provided satisfy WP:GNG, WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable Sources and vote 'keep'. I've made a genuine effort to justify the delete nomination; there has been one delete vote and no-one has yet argued against my WP policy-based rationale. I'm not interested in engaging in a continuous argument with editors who are not prepared to express an opinion. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Emmentalist, no it is relevant irrelevant (typo pointed out by PamD) what name a source uses to reference the subject. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. I assume good faith, of course, and I an see that you have made many more edits at WP than me, but I honestly find it difficult to understand why editors would take the time to make what are in the end multiple ephemeral comments about minor points without making a keep/delete judgement, the latter being the point of this discussion. I've laid out many points in defence of the substantive nomination for deletion; why not simply express a view? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't checked all the statements above, but I'd point out that ref 8 "which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand", is about an exhibition "being run in conjunction with the Nottingham-based National Caribbean Heritage Museum." and the article later says "the National Caribbean Heritage Museum, also known as Museumand". PamD 17:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And ref 6 "which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand" is included because it has bibliographic info about the book mentioned in ref 5, so complements that source in supporting the statement in the article. PamD 17:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And ref 2 "which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand" is clearly discussing its origins. PamD 17:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and some of this concern can be solved with a redirect from National Caribbean Heritage Museum which is already in place so there really is no issue. @Emmentalist there is no need for someone to explicitly note Keep or Delete nor the article to explicitly mention the current name. It's still the same org and coverage transfers with it Star Mississippi 17:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Star Mississippi The substantive issue is whether the references satisfy the policies. There's really no way that they do, imho. However, I don't agree that there is meaningful evidence that there is truly 'an organisation' involved here at all. I've already commented above about the aggrandised nature of a claim of a National museum. But in any case, why not simply say whether you think it's a 'keep' or 'delete' based upon WP policies? I honestly feel I've done enough here. It's up to folk like you to take a view, I think. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re ref 16: for "PR company" read "independent events and publishing company created to connect, inform and inspire. It is also a community of people who work in the world of museums, heritage and cultural visitor attractions who come together to learn, share and create" (from its "About us"), and for "refers to Museumand" read that the source describes two of Museumand's exhibitions in its roundup of events marking Windrush Day. PamD 17:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, let me re-word this as:
    Re ref 16: for what Emmentalist refers to as "PR company" read "a resource called Museums + Heritage Advisor which describes itself as 'independent events and publishing company created to connect, inform and inspire.' and says of itself 'It is also a community of people who work in the world of museums, heritage and cultural visitor attractions who come together to learn, share and create' (from its 'About us')", and for "refers to Museumand" read that the source describes two of Museumand's exhibitions in its roundup of events marking Windrush Day.
    PamD 12:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The references meet WP:THREE. Specifically, the BBC news article, which is independent, reliable and significant coverage of the National Caribbean Heritage Museum / Museumand; the Guardian article about the podcast; and the Museums and Heritage article. I see that the other references are not all independent, but they do verify that the organisation is involved with other notable organisations like the Bank of England and Oxford University. Tacyarg (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that the organisation is mentioned in a couple of books, Mother Country: Real Stories of the Windrush Children and Today: A History of our World through 60 years of Conversations & Controversies, both reliable sources, publisher is Hachette. I haven't added these to the article as they don't add any content to that already there, but it does show coverage of the organisation. Tacyarg (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PR

I assume good faith from all editors here, but the comment above, full of transparent PR nonsense, is untrue and has made me worry whether PR interests might, one way or the other, be intruding into this discussion. M&H Ltd, which appears to be the source of some of the website references referred to in this discussion and is described by @PamD as; "a community of people who work in the world of museums, heritage and cultural visitor attractions who come together to learn, share and create" is a wholly privately-owned PR and events company[1] which self-describes elsewhere as; "an independent events and publishing company". I have made a genuine effort to show how this article does not conform to WP policies. I do not want to engage any further in what is beginning to feel to me like a discussion with an opaque purpose. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not "described by" me as: I quoted their own self-description and made this quite clear. PamD 11:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10028315

COI?

The introduction of a heading, above, has disrupted the normal flow of an AfD discussion so I see no option but to introduce another such heading. @Emmentalist: has now suggested on my talk page that I may have a COI with Museumand.

In the interest of clarity, I disclose here an email which I sent to "hello@museumand.org" on 15 Feb:

Hallo

I created a Wikipedia article about Museumand a couple of years ago, I think after hearing Catherine and Lydia on Radio 4. It's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museumand, though someone else edited it to call you a "group" rather than a "museum".

Your website seems to be "under maintenance" and the person trying to delete the article (as "not notable" in Wikipedia's very specific terms) claims that it seems to have been so for some time, so that Museumand may or may not still exist. I can see that the SKN CIC records at Companies House are up to date, and that you've got a current exhibition at the Bank of England Museum. Is the web site likely to reappear in the near future? I hope so. Or, if Museumand has folded in the last few months, is there a newspaper or magazine or website article about its closure, which would help prove that it was notable, even if it no longer exists. (Wikipedia is about history as well as today).

Best wishes, anyway!

Pam

Is that COI? Or an attempt to improve the encyclopedia? I have had no reply, but I note that the website has changed from "Maintenance" to "Back soon" since I sent that email. I have had no other contact whatsover with Museumand, apart from hearing a radio feature about them in the first place and researching them online. PamD 12:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call this a COI @PamD.
@Emmentalist your readings of policy & guidelines does not (edited Star Mississippi 16:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)) seem to agree with the general community's in several instances as I've noted above. You've made your case here, I suggest you let others weigh in. If you think there's a conduct issue, feel free to take it to the relevant notice board. Star Mississippi 16:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Star Mississippi So we're entirely clear, I followed the WP:COI process and opened a discussion at @PamDs Talk page, not here. If I may say, I honestly don't understand why you are prepared to take part to such a degree in a deletion discussion at the margins (i.e around minor points of quibble) rather than taking a delete/keep view on the substantive policies I've made a considerable effort to lay out. Perhaps you could help the process by take a keep/delete view based on the policies? Whichever view you take, it would be very helpful and constructive. For clarity re: COI, I will not confuse the AfD by discussing that here (it is at @pamD's talk page), but I will say that contacting Museumand and effecting a change at the website, and misdescribing a PR company (which I have indications may have a paid interest in the Museumand issue) as a community the relevant user might be part of, go well beyond Wikipedia article editing and quite possibly into WP:COI. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Emmentalist you have chosen to badger participants who doesn't agree with your POV, beginning with saying @PamD shouldn't participate as article creator and misunderstanding or misapplying policies such as OR. Once I took a clerking/admin action, it is my personal belief that I won't take a content position. But for future AfDs, please remember it's about discussion, not named !votes. As a closer, conversation helps more than the bolded portion. If you have a substantive case to back up your repeated COI allegations, please take them to the relevant notice board. Star Mississippi 19:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(afer edit conflict) I, for one, am genuinely undecided about the disposition of this article, but policy is that the decision should be made on the basis of sources for any name by which it has gone. There is far too much making of decisions before thought at AfD. The reverse should be done. This is a discussion, not a vote. And the idea that PamD has a conflict of interest is simply preposterous. You do yourself no favours by making such a claim. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC) And I find it very hard to argue against someone named after cheese, which I just love.[reply]

AfD discussion so far

Hi, @PamD, @Star Mississippi and @Phil Bridger. I nominated Museumand for deletion. I've provided, in my opinion, a great deal of evidence that the article does not satisfy WP policies. I've specified the relevant policies. WP:Notibility is perhaps the most significant one. In my view, @PamD has edged into WP:COI; I've provided reasoning for my view (although I do not suggest that it is not arguable) at the relevant Talk page as laid out as the first step at WP:COI. I have done all this in good faith. In response, @PamD has accused me of "trying to wreck" an article (I am simply trying to delete it as per WP policy) and I am now accused of badgering. In addition, @Star Mississippi and @Phil Bridger have approached the discussion in a way which avoids taking a substantive view while offering, in my view, ephemeral comments which take no view at all on delete/keep. This is an AfD discussion and to seek to constrain it to marginal issues appears, to me, something which might limit discourse so that it does not reach a consensus/conclusion. As with all edits, this is a learning experience for me. I assume good faith on the part of all editors, but I am honestly puzzled as to why experienced editors are so unprepared to make a judgement against the criteria laid down in the relevant WP policies. I will leave my comments at that and move on. Thanks for taking the time to chat, and all the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that @Star Mississippi, an admin, intervened above to point out Emmentalist's misunderstanding of the procedures for AfD (2:33 pm, 18 February 2024), and has since said Once I took a clerking/admin action, it is my personal belief that I won't take a content position., which is an honourable position which has excluded them from making a !vote.
I am also tired of being accused of COI. My only connection with Museumand is that, having heard them featured in a radio programme, I decided to create an article about them, and I have since sent one, neutral, email which I copied above. Naturally, as the creator of the article, I do not want to see it deleted. I don't see the phrase "trying to wreck" anywhere: on my talk page I mentioned that Emmentalist seemed "intent on destroying" the article (let's face it, nominating an article at AfD is indeed an attempt to remove, wreck, destroy, obliterate, annihilate... all synonyms for "delete" in this context), but their determination to pursue this AfD certainly gives that impression, with their inaccurate statements such as that relating to reference 8 and repeated accusation of COI. PamD 13:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of your last 50 edits have involved trying to get this deleted. Coming on the heels of an account that was created to an AfD an article, it reads a little off @Emmentalist. Regardless of how this closes, I recommend you take a deep read into the policies and guidelines before another AfD. It will help ensure the process goes more smoothly. Star Mississippi 00:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have adhered strictly to all policies. You are welcome to examine my editing history, which I think you will find is careful, always in good faith and represents a proper application of policy. You refer to my editing of 2022: that AfD was indeed what brought me into editing as it was a very poor article; the article was deleted. You have, on the contrary, refused to take a position on the substantive matter of an AfD discussion; i.e. whether the article should be kept or deleted. With great respect, I really feel that we've taken this discussion as far as we can. Perhaps other editors will express a view now, or alternatively an admin will close. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per rationale by User:Tacyarg above references meet WP:THREE. Theroadislong (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see reliable sourcing on the page sufficient to meet GNG. The name change does make the search more challenging. I'm quite confused by the non-standard sectioning in this formal process. BusterD (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Museumand&oldid=1213677646"