Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Museum of Particularly Bad Art

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. Arguments against deletion are well taken, but from comments it's not clear if a plain keep or a merger is warranted; perhaps a merger discussion is warranted here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Particularly Bad Art

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

A locale event with no obvious notability. Despite the name, not actually a museum. Dysklyver 20:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with heavy heart, as a lover of high kitch, and a prime member of the target audience of this kind of thing, having a perverse interest in all things fugly. Note that Museum of Bad Art is FA...one of my favs on wiki, but alas this has not gotten sufficient traction and resulting available sources to be kept. Goddamn. Ceoil (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect and trim to a section in Chapel Street, Melbourne, where the event is located, to which it does add some value. Not notable in its own right, but there is salvageable and worthy content here of interest to people. Aoziwe (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it seems a shame to lose the content entirely. Dysklyver 12:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I tacked down several sources. A few are weak, but "the Age", a RS, has written a lot on them. I also found articles from der spiegel and NRK Norwegian radio. There are also many old, likely dead, rescued sources in the EL section which have been hidden, but which do serve to show wide coverage in RS.96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well if its been covered by an RS in Norway then its not a local interest only event, which is good. Dysklyver 11:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am now leaning almost to a weak keep. Aoziwe (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to
WP:PRESERVE this information on chapel Street.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, or merge to Chapel Street, Melbourne, it's a coin toss, but if merged try not to lose any of the information. bd2412 T 03:25, 19 October 2017 (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.