Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Science of Aliens


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Science Museum, London. History is under the redirect as opinion is split on whether or not to merge. The destination is clear, however. Star  Mississippi  03:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The Science of Aliens

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

These were short-lived museum exhibits from over 15 years ago. There is no evidence these exhibits are, or were, notable or could pass WP:GNG. These articles were created by the same user at the time of the exhibit using 'citations' which were press releases or primary sources (WP:NOTADVERT). The subjects fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED. Over a month ago I took the best single citations and put them next to the mention of each of these three exhibit names at Science Museum, London § Temporary and touring exhibitions where there was a brief mention along with all the other non-notable temporary exhibits.

User also created the redirect The Science of..., and the only use of these 4 articles was by this user to link to each other. However, the same "names" are used numerous times throughout Wikipedia for book titles, convention names, other unrelated museum exhibits, and more (insource search results for science of survival (38) aliens (7) spying (5)). For this reason, converting these to redirects would be inadvisable because of confusions — these temporary museum exhibits don't rate higher than published books and other uses of the same strings of words — and since there are no other uses of these, there's no reason to keep these even as redirects. Grorp (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Grorp (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I fixed the broken links with Internet Archive Bot. I found several news hits using Google News. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. Your tool was able to recover a single blog article ; the other 'fixes' either point to archived "page not found" webpages, or are external links to archived scienceof.com webpages (primary sources) that have no content (unless, perhaps, you still run javascript; my computer shows nothing after trying 3 different browsers). You suggest you were able to find other sources but have not provided any here or in the articles for evaluation of notability. Sure you can get 'hits' because there are many museums who have exhibits using the same names, but they're not the same exhibit or origin (from Science Museum, London). I haven't seen a single current online article devoted to the exhibits mentioned in these 3 wiki articles. Have you? Grorp (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Could we perhaps both merge with the other "The science of..." entries and link to a disambiguation page? I'm on the fence about whether or not this topic would be worthy of an article but I think it does (just technically) meet WP:GNG. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Reply: A newspaper blog is a reliable source. The dead links to reliable sources are frustrating, but I think they can be taken as evidence that the reviews in question were published and were once available online. A reference doesn't have to be available online today to be valid. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisted to consider redirect suggestion (which I believe is different than the one the nominator is argued against). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Science Museum, London. Thank you for improving referencing at Science Museum, London. There is some evidence that these subjects pass WP:GNG so redirects are the least we can do here. If there are other notable topics that use these titles, we'll create disambig pages when those articles are written. Or create them now if you like. ~Kvng (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Still no consensus. But I need to check, is the possible Redirect/Merge target Science Museum, London? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or Merge - I found quite a few RS covering the subject (Canadian Geographic, Sunday News Lancaster PA, Design Week, Birmingham Mail, Montreal Gazette, etc.), but I don't know if each exhibit warrants a separate article.  APK  whisper in my ear  03:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect is fine I guess... I'd merge these three articles into a one line sentence about the "Science of" travelling exhibits and be done with it. I'm not fussed either way. Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oaktree b, if I have identified the wrong target article, let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 19 July 2023 (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.