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 boldly reconfigured into a larger topic. Despite reservations expressed by one editor, this appears to be a workable solution to the objections that lead to the proposal for deletion. The content of the new parent article is clearly better sourced, and the content regarding the museum meets the standard of noteworthiness for inclusion in a larger article (which is a lower standard than notability for a freestanding article). BD2412 T 03:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melaka Transportation Museum[edit]

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

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

fails WP:GNG. Nothing in gnews for both English and Malay names. Museum appears to be now closed so that may explain lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. wp:ITSAMUSEUM, notability is not temporary, I expect there does in fact exist substantial coverage, etc. as with numerous other AFDs on museums in this area of the world (all or most such AFDs ending in "Keep" IIRC). --Doncram (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wp:ITSAMUSEUM is an essay. Where is the substantial coverage you talk about? Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Museums fall under notability guideline WP:ORG where it's clearly stated that "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is". I cannot find any evidence that Melaka Transportation Museum meets basic guidelines calling for "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Simply does not meet basic notability threshold. Glendoremus (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Update: The linked other two museum AFDs have been closed "Keep", obviously. I noticed this was still open, despite it being a museum and notable, as explained in wp:ITSAMUSEUM (an essay which does explain why museums generally meet Wikipedia's wp:GNG). I had noticed a number of sources previously, but now I have added some and developed the article a bit more. I also moved it to "Taman Bunga Merdeka", the apparently common name. The "Melaka Transportation Museum" is the continuing name of an open-air transportation artifacts collection located downtown, in what is also known as "Coronation Park". Yes, the museum (or its artifacts, or a different collection of artifacts) was located during 2010-2015 in a suburban area of Melaka. We only need one combo article to cover the former and current museum, and the park which holds it. There are many more sources available if one searches on alternate terms including "Coronation Park" and "Taman Bunga Merdeka". The AFD is ready to be closed, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of it as part of a World Heritage site, encompassing the historic city centre, may also be developed. --Doncram (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ITSAMUSEUM and Doncram's improvements. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Improvements" don't meet basic WP:GNG. The single, additional source is a personal blog; another source is a city council advertisement for their attraction; two of the links are dead and there's no way to evaluate them; the final link leads to a news outlet of some sort but I cannot find any mention of the topic at hand. In other words, there are zero sources that meet the basic notability threshold--"significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Glendoremus (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent coverage to establish notability of the museum. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Update 2 After browsing in the Malayam language (which I don't read, but i can use Google translate)'s Wikipedia and other searching, it becomes apparent that the transportation museum part of the park is in fact a part of a "Muzeum Ludowe" or "Folk Museum" which turns out to be the People's Museum. And the English Wikipedia's "People's Museum" article has been stating this. So I have modified the article to express this. It remains that the park is larger, includes flower garden areas, was created in 1953 by the Brits to commemorate the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, etc., and I think it makes sense to retain the combo article, already moved in name, and now clarified. And which can sensibly continue to mention/cover the related transportation museum that existed from 2010 to 2015 separately, apparently. It would not make sense to delete the article, now more about the park as a whole, and which can be further developed, too. Though editors looking for a lot of online coverage of the once-separate museum might not ever be satisfied with it as an article about the museum alone.

I do recognize that moving/renaming/changing focus of an article during an AFD can be confusing, and can preempt some kinds of closings for an original AFD, but I did participate in good faith here, and did move it, and moving is not prohibited per wp:AFD#Wikietiquette. So while the meaning of a "Keep" outcome for this AFD has changed, the existing article should be Kept IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds like what you've effectively done is unilaterally MERGED this article into a new article you've just created, Taman Bunga Merdeka. I'm not so sure I'd call that an appropriate action during an AFD but if it stands, please ensure that this discussion is closed reflecting that decision: MERGE not KEEP. Glendoremus (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2020 (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.