Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Library museums pages

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)

1) Jonathan Bowen is listed as the founder of "Virtual Library museums pages". He also happens to be a major editor on the article, failsWP:COI and also potentially failing WP:NPOV. Article is also written as a PROMO

2) Is it accurate to suggest that a website, deemed notable by Wikipedia, is exclusively hosted on Fandom? This is rather questionable and in my opinion, fails WP:GNG.

3) Majority of sources appear to be primary, originating from papers, websites or books published by Jonathan Bowen himself. However, these sources themselves do not carry much notability either, as indicated by their low citation counts and search rankings. Again, fails WP:GNG and also potentially failing WP:OR. In addition, several sources are dead links.

4) Some sources do not even back up said claims. For example, at the time of writing, source 22 (Mohta, Viraf D. (1997). The World Wide Web For Kids & Parents) does not endorse nor recommend "Virtual Library museums pages" at all. There are more cases similar to this throughout the article. 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 The page is probably outdated, but at the least an interesting piece of internet history.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, please see point 4 of my original reason for deleting this article. Multiple sources that are accessible, fails "independent of the subject" "do they cover the subject in depth". Let me give you a few examples:
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]