Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creationist museums


 * 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. PeterSymonds (talk)  17:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

List of creationist museums

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a list of many red links, which seems to be just a list of external links to unnotable fringe "museums." For example, one that does have press mentions and is not a red link is Kent Hovind's Dinosaur Adventure Land. The "museum" is a few kiddie rides behind Hovind's home and received press for the owner's refusal to purchase a $50.00 permit.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   — Cliff smith  talk  03:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete does not conform to Lists. There is no criteria for the list, it is poorly sourced- we don't know whats notable or someone's home, the list has no encyclopedic value, etc. We66er (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete too many dubious red linksAnnette46 (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - but remove red links --T-rex 04:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As a dinosaur, this editor is obviously biased. --NE2 12:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as there's just too much nonsense/unverifiable here to sort through; a better list would start over with independent sources and verifying existing museums before adding that redlinked mess.Ravenmasterq (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY -Hunting dog (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove red links. The list is a useful resource for those interested in creationist ideas.  Compare with List of science museums in the United States, which incidentally also has a lot of red links.  Plazak (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you keep the list and remove the red links. You'll have a "list of five" with only one not being a redirect to a fringe person or organization. Also its not fair to compare this list to real science. Real science museums, like the National Museum of Natural History, have notable discoveries and are major draws. All but one creationists "museums" don't and are not notable interms of press, exhibits, and historical significance. We66er (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not comparing creationism with science, I'm comparing lists of museums. As far as being "fringe," that depends on the fringe of what; on the fringe of science, yes, but very much in the mainstream of popular belief.  As far as being "major draws" or "notable," I've only been in a couple of creationist museums, but they both seemed to be pretty well attended, much better attended, in fact, than a number of science museums I've visited.  We should be careful never to delete an article just because we disagree with the views expressed by its subject.   Plazak (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem very confused. I wrote: If we remove the red links, you'll have a list of 5 "museums" in which four are redirects. Hardly a need to keep such a list. Additionally I wrote, they are "not notable in terms of press, exhibits, and historical significance." Now, you claim otherwise. Let's see proof of it. As of now, some of these are operated at people's homes. What is the criteria for the list? We66er (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends upon what he meant by "remove red links". You are assuming that he meant 'remove the red-linked list members completely.' He may have simply meant 'remove the red-linking from the list members, but leave them in place.' HrafnTalkStalk 16:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SALAT. It says: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value. Seriously, most of the millions of museums in the world probably has some aspect of creationist material whether they know it or not. Its simply too broad and isn't necessary. Tavix (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If "creationist museum" is too general, how can "art museum" or "science museum" be any less general? Or would you entirely eliminate all lists of museums?  Plazak (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The inclusion criteria seem straight forward, it's not an unreasonable grouping, and there aren't either so many of these in the world that the list would be unmanageable, nor so few that it would be unnecessary (so it's not too general or too broad in scope). These things tend to get sufficient news coverage. I picked the first red link (Big Valley Creation Science Museum) and ran a quick Google, finding several non-trivial articles from notable sources: CTV.ca RoadsideAmerica Reuters That meets Notability. I strongly suspect the others should at least be given a similar chance, one at a time. Meanwhile the list is certainly appropriate. --GRuban (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In contrast, the Seberia "museum" was deleted for not being notable (see: Articles for deletion/Center for Natural Studies) and yet it is on the list. Shouldn't the list's contents sourced? There are absolutely no WP:RS supporting this list. Without references this is a collection of WP:FRINGE groups that demonstrate no relevance.
 * By the way, according to your source for the Big Valley Creation Science Museum: it is "in the village Big Valley, Alberta, population 308." and "The Big Valley museum has been more low key, with a few stories in local newspapers discussing the facility." An article about a fringe museum in a town of less than 400 people which has "a few stories in local newspapers." For "Big Valley Creation Science Museum" I get 1,040 google hits, including promotion on video websites and forums. This is very marginal stuff, according to your source. We66er (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, Reuters is "my source", I own it. I also own The Associated Press which also wrote a fairly long article about this museum, and both are "local newspapers". You've found me out. And the notability of a museum is directly affected by the size of the town it happens to be in, you got me there as well. Vatican Museums are in a city with a population of 800, I'll go off and nominate that article for deletion too. --GRuban (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Your source" refers to a source you provided. Nice red herring. Also I note you ignored my comments on Articles for deletion/Center for Natural Studies, which is on the list. So are you going to go through the list to demonstrate notablity? Silly comparison: Vatican City - its own country, home of a major world religion for 1500 years. Big Valley, Alberta hardly compares to that history. But if these museums are notable then will you create articles about them? We66er (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I ignored your comments about the deletion of a single item on the list, since it's irrelevant. The fact that an entry in the list may be worthy of deletion is hardly an argument for deletion of the whole list, any more than justified deletion of a sentence in an article is not an argument for deletion of the whole article. I noticed you started this whole AfD sith a similar premise, that's irrelevant too. To justify deletion of the whole list, you need to show that the whole list needs to go, not just some of it. Will I create some articles about some notable members of the list? What is this, a personal challenge now? I'm not normally into the creation/evolution debate, but, sure, why not. Will you return the favor some day, and create some articles I ask you to? ("Some day, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me...") --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, per request, I created Big Valley Creation Science Museum and Creation Evidence Museum - not FA quality, but clearly sufficient. Good references, free images and everything. It took a couple of hours, but shows it can be done. You owe me. :-) I also linked an LA Times article that basically lists creation museums, showing that the topic "List of creationist museums" is notable in itself. --GRuban (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hahaha. You called Carl Baugh, "Dr." Carl Baugh who searches for living pterodactyls. You really are reaching. Baugh got a "doctorate" from an unaccredited "college" he runs. Anyway, you can't prove a negative: I can't prove things are unnotable. The onus is on the one wanting to keep the article via asserting importance. Even "Dr" Baugh would agree with that. We66er (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, but remove excessive redlinking of non-article list-members. WP:STAND does not require all members of a list to be notable, so the large number of non-article members is not relevant. Five list members are notable enough to have their own article (as are a further two museum operators). This combined with a clearly-defined inclusion criteria would appear to make the topic notable. The list additionally is informative as to the geographic distribution of these museums and thus of creationism. Self-reporting would appear to be sufficient of a source for bare existence of these museums (per WP:SELFPUB). HrafnTalkStalk 04:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You cited WP:STAND, but I don't see the relevant policy in that article. There is a section on development and it discusses notablity on people in lists. If you are arguing this list is created for development, merely existing, ie having a website, doesn't seem to be convincing for development. If you are arguing we should relate it to people then notablity must be a factor as well. We66er (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On closer examination, my opinion was based upon a misreading of WP:STAND (I failed to note the "one" in "one exception" meant "sole exception"), so I've striken this opinion. HrafnTalkStalk 19:30, 14 August 2008 (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.