Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virtual_Library_museums_pages References

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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Virtual Library museums pages

[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)

Blatant promo article (website hosted on Fandom, really?) Fails WP:GNG, not to mention the abundance of primary and unreliable sources. Hadal1337 ( talk) 15:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Internet, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep What is the actual policy-based reason for deletion? The page is probably outdated, but at the least an interesting piece of internet history. Johnbod ( talk) 18:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
It is simply not notable, as listed in my 2nd and 3rd point. Do all slightly interesting pieces of internet history deserve a place on Wikipedia? Not to mention, this is a blatant PROMO Hadal1337 ( talk) 08:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Neither "hosted on Fandom" nor "majority of sources appear to be primary ... several sources are deadlinks" are policy-based reasons for deletion or evidence that the article is not notable.
The article references several sources which look likely to count towards notability, including:
Turner, Nancy B. (1999). "Virtual Library Museums Pages". Electronic Resources Review.

Karp, Cary (October–December 1999). "Setting root on the Internet: Establishing a network identity for the museum community". Museum International.

Veltman, Kim H. (2001). "Developments in Virtual Museums". In Valentino, P.; Mossetto, G. (eds.). Museo contro museo. Le strategie, gli strumenti, i risultati

Flor, Carla; Vanzin, Tarcisco; Ulbricht, Vania Ribas. "Virtual Museums: Diagnosis Accessibility" [Museus Virtuais: Diagnóstico de Acessibilidade]. Hipermídias: Interfaces Digitais em Ead
I don't have access to all of these, so I'm open to be persuaded that I'm wrong, but it seems likely to me based on the sources cited that VLmp does meet WP:GNG. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 10:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Turner, Nancy B: Downloaded a total of 58 times since publication

Karp, Cary: 7 views and 0 citations since publication

Veltman, Kim H: the reference points to a domain for sale

Flor, Carla: 0 citations in total

I would kindly request you view some of the sources mentioned on the VLmp page, and you will soon realize the majority of them no longer exist or are not notable sources to begin with. Feel free to come back and recommend your opinion on keeping or deleting the Wikipedia page. Hadal1337 ( talk) 12:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply
None of that is relevant to whether these sources (or any other sources) demonstrate notability. For GNG, we have to ask three questions: 1. are these sources reliable, 2. are they independent of the subject, and 3. do they cover the subject in depth. The fact that the links currently in the article are broken doesn't matter. The fact that the hosting site reports only 58 downloads doesn't matter.

It looks to me as though the references I mentioned are likely to meet all three criteria. Do you have a reason to believe that they do not? (Did you actually check the sources already in the article before asserting that it fails GNG?) Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 08:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC) reply
How do we know if a source is reliable if we cannot access it? None of the sources you listed are accessible. Using common sense, a good way to evaluate if a source is reliable if I cannot access it is by looking at the citation count. Answering your question if I checked the sources, let me give you a few examples (that are publicly accessible and actually exist):
Marty, Paul; Jones, Kathy, eds. (1 March 2021) - Primary source

Gaia, Giuliano; Boiano, Stefania; Bowen, Jonathan P.; Borda, Ann (2020) - Primary source

Bowen, Jonathan P. (2002). "Weaving the Museum Web: The Virtual Library museums pages". - Primary source

Bowen, Jonathan P. (1997). "The Virtual Library museums pages (VLmp): Whence and Whither?" - Primary source

The WWW Virtual Library. February 2008. - Unreliable source

"Virtual Library museums pages". MuseumsWiki. Fandom. Retrieved 24 June 2021. - Primary source

Bowen, Jonathan P.; Angus, Jim; Bennet, Jim; Borda, Ann; Hodges, Andrew; Filippini-Fantoni, Silvia; Beler, Alpay (2005). - Primary source

"The Virtual Museum of Computing". Google Groups. 2 June 1995. - Unreliable + Primary source

There are more examples that I didn't include. Like I previously suggested, I kindly request you view some of the sources mentioned and come back with a recommendation. Hadal1337 ( talk) 15:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep – per above and adequate independent references. Note that this is of historical rather than current relevance. Wikipedia covers history as well as current items. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 15:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per above. The person who loves reading ( talk) 02:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep meets our guideline for notability Lightburst ( talk) 21:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - seem to be sufficient published papers to show notability. JMWt ( talk) 09:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep Just because its hosted on Fandom does not mean it should be deleted I think we have a few other articles on websites hosted on Fandom as well Qwv ( talk) 11:35, 29 May 2023 (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.