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

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]

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]
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]