Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seychelles Natural History 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Seychelles Natural History Museum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

museums are not inherently notable, despite the usual suspect recycling the invalid WP:INHERIT argument. 1 gnews hit, and this article lists the non reliable tripadvisor as a source. fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Let's see if the usual suspect "finds" this AfD. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge with Victoria, Seychelles - no reason we can't include a bit about the museum there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 16:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Natural History Museum is listed in numerous guidebooks and tourist board materials, of course, among them a mention in a National Geographic website that it is the "town's best museum".  A 2010 article in The Guardian about the museums of Victoria is mostly about the National Museum of History but has several paragraphs about this museum and its gigantic coco de mer specimen.   If nothing else the available sources could be used to help improve the article for Victoria, Seychelles.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep this from the Guardian is a reliable source. Combined with the other sources mentioned by Arxiloxos this is enough to justify keeping this article.--TM 00:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The Guardian article (above) lists several items on display that merit inclusion in this article. This would make the our article adequately sourced and have enough content to merit is retention. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional reliable sources, albeit with limited content:
 * Verbcatcher (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Verbcatcher (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Verbcatcher (talk) 04:41, 1 October 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.