Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Sea Islands 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.  Sandstein  21:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

South Sea Islands Museum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant coverage as required per guidelines. Appears to be non-notable small museum run by a religious college. The article author admits that the topic is only "locally notable". Regards, James(talk/contribs) 05:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * delete 1 gnews hits. Fails WP:ORG Wikipedia should include major museums not a museum that is open a mere 6 hours a week. LibStar (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy if acceptable to the author.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * keep the author was misquoted by James Allison and did not say 'only notable' - any more than the Denver Broncos are 'only notable' in Denver. The museum in question is valued by the local community and the whole Adventist population of Oceania whose artefacts and history it attempts to preserve.  The 'mere 6 hours a week' opening hours has always been supplemented by group bookings for tourists and schools. Gnews hits do not reflect cultural value and notability - unless there had been a bomb scare there. Nyctemana55 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)  — Nyctemana55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * do you have any connection to this museum ? LibStar (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Consider Userfy if acceptable to you. In any case, please reply on my talk page.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * LibStar (talk I wonder if it has occurred to you that every wiki editor in existence once had 'few or no other edits' when they were first starting out. Every editor was once a "single-purpose account" for at least a little while. Pointing this out to pad out the weight of non-notable evidence makes the comment appear rather superior and conceited. Nyctemana55 has no direct connection to the museum.  They live 700km away and have never visited it.  A history student doing an internship at the museum asked for their extremely inexpert help to write a wiki article about it.  It was their opinion that it was significant, unique, and otherwise unmentioned on Wikipedia.  We were aware that it would be a learning curve and that format and protocol rules would have to be learned (hopefully before they were broken) and that ultimately the finished article would meet all wiki standards.  But it appears that unhelpfully shooting it down has become a game for some editors. We're trying to learn, and trying to cooperate, and believe we have a unique and important set of information that will be useful and informative to many people in the future. Nyctemana55 (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The comment above in no way establishes how the subject is notable but rather an ad hom attack and tries to divert attention away from the questionable notability of the subject . Adding a single purpose editor tag is standard practice in AfD discussions. LibStar (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But is does make one wonder whether wiki was originally designed as a playground for pedanticism. There seems to be a huge range of editorial interpretation of wiki standards.  My "single-purpose account" comment wasn't intended as an ad hom attack on yourself, but your 'standard' use of it on a novice perhaps amounts to exactly that.  You're giving a Quarterback a passer rating of 0 or 100 based on a single pass in a single game, and labeling a new contributor as guilty of improper content motivation for their first article.  Welcome to wiki,  I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Nyctemana55 LibStar talk) 10:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Refer to my previous response . LibStar (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Cooranbong, New South Wales and keep title as a redirect. There isn't really enough notability for a stand-alone article, but it is a prominent aspect of the town and there is enough independent coverage to support that, e.g. ''Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Government heritage strategy. Voceditenore (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and added a paragraph on the museum at Cooranbong, New South Wales. This does not preclude eventually having a stand-alone article about it, but it will ensure that the information remains available to readers. I suspect that there may be more coverage of this museum in the Australian press from the late 1960s when the museum was founded, but the archives of the Sydney Morning Herald are behind a pay wall. Voceditenore (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- It is presumably some kind of tourist attraction. At worst Merge and Redirect.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You haven't presented any valid argument as to how notability is met to justify a keep vote. LibStar (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Subject of article in Newcastle Herald, SMH article is not readily available online but appears legit. Paul foord (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * being subject of 1 or 2 articles is not really significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Well documented museum well known in Coorabong.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * being "well known" in a rural suburb of 5000 residents is hardly a case for notability. LibStar (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete and Draft actually instead as this article could be acceptable but I also wonder if this could be better improved and I'm not currently convinced. Not exactly important for delete so Draft if needed. SwisterTwister   talk  04:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  18:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG . ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:VAGUEWAVE. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:LibStar, please put down you WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per coverage in SMH, Newcastle Herald, and a Department of the Environment publication. The coverage in the Newcastle Herald article is in depth and along with the other two sources should be enough to satisfy GNG. Altamel (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep with kudos to editors who upgraded sourcing, plenty of coverage now. But I do wish Nom had undertaken to guide editors toward improving article, instead of bringing a small museum with its own building and a remarkable collection (apparent already in article when nominated) instead of going to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A validating source,, and image . Added a couple of RS to article, which now passes muster. Small museums with significant artifacts are WP:NOTABLE.  And that Solomon Islands canoe is awesome. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2016 (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.