This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Museums and libraries. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName)) to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding ((subst:delsort|Museums and libraries|~~~~)) to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Museums and libraries. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except ((Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName)) is used for MFD and ((transclude xfd)) for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with ((prodded)) will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch☎✎ 17:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are some press references [1][2][3] and books [4] etc. There's too much content here, with the prospect of adding more, to merit the proposed merge elsewhere where this museum would then overly dominate the other article, in my opinion. Plus it's inclusion in Template:British Aviation Museums seems reasonable and would be less well achieved following a merge. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a museum run by volunteers, with scope over a self-governing territory, therefore we can assume WP:NONPROFIT applies. With the secondary sourcing both in the article and identified by @UkPaolo, I agree meets notability guidelines. Keep. ResonantDistortion 10:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could not find reliable sources online, except for some (including sources used in this article) having short mentions on this subject. Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources used in the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not written in an encyclopedic format and fails WP:GNG - all of the sources are primary. If kept, needs significant cleanup. Some of this information may be able to be merged elsewhere, but I'm not sure where. SportingFlyerT·C 19:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a former library on a university campus. Absolutely nothing here is cited to independent sources. Most of the sources provided are from this library's website itself; the rest are from the websites of the university it served. A redirect to the university campus is probably warranted; unfortunately, that article is a mess, too. There's probably citable material for the decision to demolish the structure and the plans to replace it, but I hesitate to suggest "merge" per se when the level of detail here is so excessive. Lubal (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 18:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]