Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil 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 speedy keep - nominator withdrew. (non-admin closure) StAnselm (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Basically a non-notable museum other than Greg Gianforte donated to it. Just a local place. Minimal significant coverage outside of the connection to the Gianforte campaign Montanabw (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- significant as part of the Young Earth creationism. Here are sample sources:
 * Dinosaur museum presents biblical view of origins: A faith-based Creation -- this is a local source, but the coverage is quite in depth
 * Dinosaurs by the Decades: A Chronology of the Dinosaur in Science and Popular Culture, book mention
 * There has also been some local controversy around whether school trips should be allowed. I would say it's akin to the Creation Museum article and should be kept / expanded. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't have super strong feelings either way, but I guess my question is the point at which a local controversy reaches "significant coverage." That other museum has been widely covered in the national press.  Not so sure about this one.  It got a lot of press because of Greg Gianforte donating to it, but take out all the coverage linked to him and there's not much left, IMHO.   Montanabw (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment well if I search 🔍 sites such as Bing News I get a load of different results from many years back unrelated to the one reference in the article, like here so I highly doubt that it doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY only the article needs to be updated to reflect this. --Donald Trung (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep We generally do keep small museums that have reliable sourcing; even museums with a controversial perspective. In this case, the Greg Gianforte-related discussiong, ongoing since at least 2015,  enhance notability.  But, as editors above have pointed out, non Gianforte-related sources also exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I'm willing to withdraw the nom.  Does anyone know if I can just do so or does a third-party uninvolved editor have to do it?   Montanabw (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's how: WP:WDAFD. Nice improvements to article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I know Montana is not the most populous state, but the second largest dinosaur museum in it ought to be notable. A good deal of the present article appears to be a COATHANGER for an attack on young-earth creationism, but that is a matter of editing, rather than deleting.  I would add that the theory is not one to which I subscribe.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep (article creator) per WP:GNG, and thanks to the editors who helped expand this stub. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: More than sufficient evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2017 (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.