Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law museum

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. Kubigula (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law museum

Law museum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Claims to be an online museum, but finds 0 GHits, which I find WP:HOAXy, personally. shoy (^words _words) 23:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Museum of legal ephemeron was a duplicate copy, I have converted it into a redirect. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It's just a Facebook group with a collection of photographs of museum exhibits. It has 67 members as of now, so notability is likely to be a bit thin. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

PS Facebook members can see it here Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Correction. The photographs are of actual pieces owned by the museum NOT just "photographs of museum exhibits" and as noted, there are negotiations to have the collection put on static display very shortly at the University of Victoria, Faculty of law. This is significant because there are no other law museums of this kind in the world. I hope you agree. Litig8t0r —Preceding comment was added at 23:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for now. Wait until it actually has a physical existence and has been noted by the media. Might just consider allowing it if it gets a proper website. But as a Facebook group - no. Thank you Iain99 for giving the link. Litig8t0r: a) why shoot yourself in the foot by not providing the Facebook link and b) you have more than one item already so surely it should be "Ephemera"? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• ""Reply from Author"" Thank you all who have added to this discussion. As a novice contributor, I wasn't aware that I could have added the Facebook link and probably should have. As for the proper usage of the word "Ephemeron" v. "Ephemera", the former speaks to a single item being useful or important for a short time, whereas the plural, or latter, would (in application) suggest that I have multiple examples of the same item being useful or important for a short time, thus the use of "ephemeron" instead of "ephemera". Personally, it is a matter of interpretation and I'd submit that either one applies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Litig8t0r (talk • contribs)
• Comment I hadn't realised that the photo were from a single collection - the Facebook site is a bit vague on that point (and in fact, "This space is all about sharing cool stuff you've collected that relate to the practice of law. Feel free to post pictures with helpful comments and tales about things you'd like to have." implies otherwise). Regardless, however, unless the collection/museum/site has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it falls short of Wikipedia's notability and verifiability criteria. If there's no coverage of it beyond the Facebook site, then I'm afraid it's a case of good luck, and come back when it's better known. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 00:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unverified. Doczilla 02:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from Author Fair enough. I wish I could provide more information vis authenticity to keep this page active. It is expected that with the display space being dedicated to the museum at the Faculty of Law there will be the usual coverage in local papers and law periodicals to go along with it. For future reference, is this considered enough to merit a WIKI article? Cheers & thanks again to all those who contributed their thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Litig8t0r (talk • contribs) 03:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I would say that coverage in the local and specialist press would be enough to justify an article, so long as it's genuinely independent (i.e. with some journalistic commentary, not just a reprint of a press release) and more than a passing mention (not just a directory-style listing of the exhibition's address and opening times). Good luck! Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Such a pity for a legal geek like myself, but I have to write delete as not notable and without reliable sourcing. I'd be willing to fix up the article when the museum goes "live" and gets some notice in periodicals/law reviews/bar journals. I'd love to see that infamous bottle from whence the slug slithered. By the way, it's not unique; there are several law enforcement and law-related museums in the United States, e.g., [1]. Bearian 17:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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.