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) 17:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pulau Besar Museum[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Sources including one blog merely confirm it exists. LibStar (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 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) 10:36, 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) 11:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the book reference you've supplied doesn't even appear to even mention this museum, that's what happens when you recycle the same AfD argument over and over again. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More non-blog reference sources have been added, including from Malaysia online newspaper (Utusan Online) and Malaysia national news agency (Bernama). More information have been added: on the transport to get to the island, purpose of the museum construction, museum sequence, museum owner, museum opening time etc. Chongkian (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Chongkian the article Meets our general notability guidelines since it has received non trivial coverage from at least two independent reliable sources.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:09, 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.