Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentine Richmond History Center


 * 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. Consensus herein is for article retention. North America1000 22:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Valentine Richmond History Center

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Though I may suggest toning down the non-neutral notification, I agree with 's comments here. Most of the article is unsourced original research. The only sources provided are primary sources from the organization's website. There is no indication of notability provided by secondary sources, but even if they were notable, we would need to delete everything not cited to a reliable secondary source, meaning the entire page.

As Wikipedians we have a shared interest with the article-subject in history and a desire to show our support, however we should not abuse our role as Wikipedian for this purpose. Promotion and notability are not issues exclusive to commercial organizations and many topics like open-source or academics get unreasonable special treatment due to their appeal to our editor demographic.

CorporateM (Talk) 09:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC) CorporateM (Talk) 09:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A quick Google indicates that this seems to be a legitimate, longstanding, notable museum. See HERE for one article from a reliable source, and HERE for another. This place has been around for a hundred years, for pete's sake. I agree that the article needs to be cleaned up, but there doesn't seem to be good justification for deleting it on the basis of notability. Lou Sander (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are dozens of reliable sources to use for cleaning the article up:--Cúchullain t/ c 17:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This is just a directory listing. This is a local source acceptable for RS, but needs to be supplemented with at least one strong national source to qualify for notability. Google News hits do not verify notability; at a glance most of those just look like articles where the museum is mentioned. However, even if they are notable, the deletion rationale did not require the absence of notability to warrant deletion; since nothing in the current article has a strong secondary source, all of the page's current content needs to be deleted. The concept of incremental improvement is not sensible when practically speaking any disinterested editor that takes an interest is better off starting from scratch rather than from a repost of the company's website. CorporateM (Talk) 20:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Question Why is a strong national source required to qualify this museum for notability? It is primarily a regional institution. Lou Sander (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep 1) The national government has taken note of it HERE and HERE. 2) This deletion proposal doesn't seem to have an author or a rationale. 3) There is no discussion of the deletion on the article's talk page, except for a minor comment by me. Lou Sander (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP -- this AfD is preposterous. I googled "Mann Valentine Museum" and got hits from independent sources such as National Park Service, The Official Virginia tourism website, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond Family Magazine, Richmond Magazine ... So notability is established: The Valentine is not only a National Historic Landmark, it was the first museum in Richmond. source: National Park Service ... OP also said "we would need to delete everything not cited to a reliable secondary source, meaning the entire page." How about following wiki process and putting cite tags on things that are "doubtful but not harmful" per WP:NOCITE. EDITED TO ADD: I took the liberty of adding refs to the article, so basically this AfD has no basis whatsoever. Peace, MPS (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep article clearly demonstrates notability NOW, something it had not done for the 8.5 years since its creation.  Sometimes articles subject to WP:CORP just need a little prodding to bring them up to standard. Thanks to CorporateM for taking this on.  --Mike Cline (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The page may still not qualify for WP:CORP, given that many of the sources are primary, are actually about the founder, only briefly mention the museum, or in some cases are blatant personal blogs (I removed those) or local tourism promotions. In other cases the sources are reliable, but I cannot find "Valentine" mentioned anywhere in the source. I have a hard time swallowing this personal blog as a reliable source, when it calls beef juice a "tried-and-true [remedy]" that "cured Valentine’s wife, or at least appeared to". I'm no doctor like, but I'm pretty sure squeezing meat doesn't actually cure ailments.


 * This is a good example of why we need stronger sources to write a neutral article. This guy literally squeezed the juice out of raw meat and sold it as a "health tonic" with dubious health claims and through this product made the money that was used to purchase most of the museum's main attractions. We made it sound glorious using weak sources, when in actuality these exhibits were purchased by selling fake medicine. I shutter to think what sanitation and disease issues surrounded selling meat juice in the 1800s. CorporateM (Talk) 08:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Appears it was partly written by the place User:ValentineRHC. The initial trimming has helped. May need some more though. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Boy! What a slippery slope that might be when we start worrying about where the $$$ actually comes from to finance enterprise!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Mike Cline (talk • contribs)
 * We could also make one or more additional articles about Valentine Meat Juice or Mann Valentine if y'all think that would make the article more streamlined. Peace, MPS (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article's problems are fixable. Deletion is not cleanup.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - There doesn't seem to be any lingering disagreement about notability or sourcing. Based on substantial changes in the last week, the article's notability was established and "lack of third-party references" has been solved. Are there any other arguments? If not, I would suggest that we have consensus to keep. Thoughts? Peace, MPS (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2015 (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.