Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Museums and libraries

Shortcuts

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.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Museums and libraries/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Museums and libraries AfDs

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuragic and Contemporary Art Museum

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

All the information I can find on this museum seems to be pages from before 2010 announcing the design contest, winning design and plans. I have been unable to find any sign that the construction has been completed or is still ongoing, and the page for the architect (Zaha Hadid) states that this project is on hold. I have found no information that indicates that work is planned to resume at some point and given that all the information I can find is 15+ years old think this fails WP:FUTURE Giuliotf (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Giuliotf (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Long-stalled project that did not attain sufficient coverage while it was in development. No indication it will restart any time soon. No viable AtD Star Mississippi 19:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enought cited sources and GNG for an organization. --Vjiralb (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2025 (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.

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 no consensus‎. Some of the Keep arguments amount to little more than WP:ITSUSEFUL. Yet after three weeks, I see no consensus to delete, and no likelihood of reaching one with a third relisting. Owen× ☎ 12:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dewey Decimal classes

AfDs for this article:

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

These articles have basically the same problems as are currently leading to a SNOW delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Library of Congress Classifications; they are inherently against WP:NOTCATALOG. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes, they are a catalogue. But this is a rather interesting situation, because inherently they are a cataloguing system for finding information. We are an encyclopaedia that provides information, and many of the subjects in this list are blue-linked to other articles, from which readers can get to places. This list is therefore, in a strange sort of way, an index into Wikipedia ideally suited to those who think like a librarian, and organise their knowledge by library book numbers. Secondly, removing this leaves the reader of the main article on the system itself (at Dewey Decimal Classification) rather in the lurch, thinking "Now I know how this system developed, but what does it actually look like?". Thirdly, it's weirdly counter-productive when an organisation as fixated on sourcing as we are decides to remove a list that actively helps our readers find sources in their local library. Overall, this deletion feels like pointless rule-following when the result is clearly to shoot ourselves (and our readers) firmly in the feet. Elemimele (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... I should clarify it is the basic list of Dewey decimal classes that I'm suggesting keeping. I have no opinion on the comparison article. Elemimele (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*::I'm confused: which comparison article do you mean? Logoshimpo (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Per nom. I'm not convinced by User:Elemimele's argument as I don't see any policy being quoted by her. With regards to Comparison of Dewey and Library of Congress subject classification: there isn't any WP:RS establish WP:N. Logoshimpo (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This in my opinion is the biggest problem with Wikipedia. So many editors are more concerned about rules than the actual utility of articles.

The thing is that hundreds of people reference this article daily, and it seems that they do so for academic purposes (there’s a notable drop in page-views over the weekend).

Rules are important, but some of the rules on Wikipedia do seem to make it difficult for information that would be helpful to have on Wikipedia from being here.

I understand that WP:PAGEVIEW does not measure WP:NOTE. You can argue that this argument completely fails under WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, but more importantly I still fail to truly see what part of WP:NOTCATALOG this page violates. USA1855 (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Regarding the pages listing all Dewey classes: it is inherently non-encyclopedic in nature. While the hyperlinks as a jumping off point can be nice, where to hyperlink within Wikipedia feels inherently subjective. Long-term, the function these lists serve could be replaced by an external link on the DDC page to a public domain DDC chart, which would serve the same purpose (which is what's happening in the LCC page). Regarding the comparison article (Comparison of Dewey and Library of Congress subject classification): a quick search of the internet reveals many external sources that provides similar, if not better functions to this article (e.g., this article by Kilgore college; thislink to a very comprehensive table that's already presented as an external link in the article in question (along with the DDC to LCC version), which could be moved to the respective DDC and LCC articles to provide additional resources). I feel that given the non-encyclopedic nature of this article (reproducing material available elsewhere), this article should be deleted.Hthundercroft (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least as far as the first one. This feels like a clear WP:Ignore all rules moment, where getting rid of it would be an objective loss for Wikipedia, and following the letter of the rule is detrimental. I am inclined to believe that the explanation of the Dewey decimal system is incomplete without this list, and that it serves a valuable (though admittedly narrow) navigational function. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful with the word "objective"; the very fact that myself and others are supporting deletion (and hence don't think any loss would occur) means by definition there wouldn't be a "objective loss"; merely a subjective one. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is an objective loss as much as anything can be said to be objectively true, as, at least in my subject belief, nothing is truly objective and there is no objective reality. But that conversation isn't productive to an AfD. I am claiming it is an objective loss because 1. The article provides benefit to some people without delivering inaccurate information and 2. there is no real benefit to deleting it as far as I can tell. Unless I somehow missed it, no one has said how getting rid of it will actually be an improvement for Wikipedia. Ike Lek (talk) 06:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So keeping this article would improve wikipedia. Please tell that to all the autobiographers who want their article on wikipedia. Logoshimpo (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually believe there isn't a difference, or are you just trying to poke holes in anything I say? To me at least, the biggest difference between this and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is WP:COI. That isn't a problem here. Ike Lek (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the end you are invoking WP:IAR but I don't see a case for that here but rather a violation of WP:NOTCATALOG specifically. Logoshimpo (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It baffles me how you don't see the case for WP:IAR here, but such is the nature of perspective, I suppose. Could you explain what specific part of WP:NOTCATALOG you believe the fist article is in violation of? Ike Lek (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
looks like entry 1 fits the bill Logoshimpo (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So "Simple lists... that do not include contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."

Does the first paragraph of the article not provide enough context? It can be improved on. I'm very confident that plenty of sources exist that would help with expansion. The list has clear inclusion criteria and restrictions, making it more than a simple list of every Dewey Decimal code in use. Ike Lek (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: entry 1.

Dewey Decimal Classification is the main article of List of Dewey Decimal classes. This list can be considered a WP:CONTENTFORK. Logoshimpo (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest you two stop arguing? It's clear (to me anyway) that neither of you is going to convince the other one of your position, and that has been clear for days. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the list is a content fork. I think it is a good fork, even if it doesn't strictly adhere to the list guidelines of WP:GOODFORK, hence why I say WP:IAR. I think putting it on the main dewey decimal page would overly clutter the page, but perhaps a collapsable table could work. It feel like making things slightly worse to fix what in my opinion is a non-issue, but I could accept a merge of that sort as a middle-ground outcome. Ike Lek (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the last nomination, it was mentioned that there are hundreds of pages of the classification. It would seem that Dewey Decimal Classification discussing the classes rather than listing them on wikipedia is the best option. Logoshimpo (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A list of all of them would absolutely be unencyclopedic, but this list has a clear limit to the main 10 classes, the hundreds divisions, and the thousands sections. It is more-or-less a complete list that shouldn't change much. Currently the main article only has the 10s, which seems like too little without the fork. I still don't really understand what good you think it would do for Wikipedia to get rid of it anyway. Ike Lek (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dewey Decimal Classification has gone through many revisions and expansions. 23 to be exact. Our job isn't to list the classes so the pages violate WP:NOTCATALOG. Logoshimpo (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to ask this directly. How do you think deletion would benefit Wikipedia? I disagree with your assessment of WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:BADFORK, but it isn't entirely unreasonable and the article very well might go against one of Wikipedia's many other policy guidelines. The reason I invoke WP:IAR is because I believe the question of whether a change improves Wikipedia is more important than strict adherence to any policy. Ike Lek (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the first article, either Keep or move to Portalspace, for similar reasons that I outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Library of Congress Classifications. Serve as useful navigational aides. For the second, delete as WP:OR. -insert valid name here- (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote on the second article to transwiki to Wikibooks, considering the amount of pageviews it gets. -insert valid name here- (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much to transwiki to wikibooks. Logoshimpo (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ike Lek. Christian75 (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ike Lek. These articles aren't a cataloguing anything; they are providing information about a cataloguing system. Completely different. Tompw (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dewey Decimal System is doing that. These articles are straight-out reproducing the content of the system with no regard for encyclopedicness. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ike Lek. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't find a relevant section to an applicable guideline or policy, but it seems to me that we have different ways to navigate this encyclopedia and this could, conceivably, be another. It doesn't really fit neatly within the others, but I can't really see a reason why it is worse. It might well be of minor interest to most users, but might be of use to someone. JMWt (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This argument amounts to WP:ITSUSEFUL. Logoshimpo (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm talking about navigating en.wiki, which WP:ITSUSEFUL is clearly not talking about. And also that's not policy or guideline anyway. JMWt (talk) 06:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTCATALOG, specifically clause #1. Let'srun (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is not an encyclopedic simple list as defined in WP:NOTCATALOG, as it provides contextual information and is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Cyrobyte (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a WP:BADFORK. Logoshimpo (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2025 (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.