Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaurland Fossil 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. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging, moving, redirecting, or what have you can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Dinosaurland Fossil Museum

Dinosaurland Fossil Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A small non-notable commercially run museum in an area where there are a number of similar organisations. This article serves only to advertise the museum and should be removed. Simple Bob (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep — there are a number of references, some now added, and this museum is located in a historic church building associated with the fossil hunter Mary Anning. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment — I don't believe that WP:BEFORE has been followed here. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, I have read the policy and successfully followed the deletion process several times. The building may be notable due to its link with Anning, and should at the very least be mentioned in both her article and the Lyme Regis article, but I stand by my assertion that the museum itself is not notable, is a commercial-only venture (unlike the nearby Lyme Regis Museum and Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre) and to me the article serves no purpose but to advertise the business. --Simple Bob (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Note: More specifically, the article was not previously marked with {{notability}} (see #3 in the bullet point list under WP:BEFORE), #9 was not done effectively (see the references found by others below) and #10 (for a newly created article like this) was not followed either ("If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD."). I believe the museum is notable from the references available. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I have found some slight coverage, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=963H_WwdUVUC&pg=PA283&dq=Dinosaurland+Fossil+Museum&hl=en&ei=xEf1S6rpFIrQmgONkbTgCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Dinosaurland%20Fossil%20Museum&f=false http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/familyholidays/4962822/Cutting-the-cost-of-an-Easter-break.html but all these do is establish existence, not notability. Its only notability seems to be to Ms Anning, and notability is not inherited from others. This is a pity as its link is interesting. But a lot more sources are needed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment The building itself shown in this ref is Grade I listed - which is generally accepted as being inherently notable by WP:HSITES etc. An infobox for museum or historic building might help.— Rod ^talk 15:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Then this should be about the building, with a brief mention of the museum, so the article needs a lot of work.It should be moved to an article about the building.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. --Simple Bob (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - There are many small commercial museums with articles on Wikipedia. The museum is listed on Visit Britain and other area travel websites. The article helps readers find this museum in Dorset that features fossils, if that is their interest. By having information such as this, Wikipedia helps smaller institutions get attention that is otherwise not deemed commercially important for print publications. Jllm06 (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as per above.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge to Mary Anning. Not notable enough for its own article. SnottyWong talk 22:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The Google news search at the top of the AFD shows four results. Their summaries seem to indicate notability. Dream Focus 05:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Not delete. It might be more appropriate to have an article on the church and put the museum into that article, but it looks like there is enough coverage one way or the other for some sort of mention. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. The Google News, Scholar & Books searches find more evidence of notability if you search for "Dinosaurland Lyme Regis" instead of "Dinosaurland Fossil Museum", as it's often known simply as Dinosaurland. This academic book chapter (p32-33) makes it clear that it's currently the main museum for fossil exhibits in Lyme Regis (a town noted for its fossils), rather than the Philpot Museum (now renamed the Lyme Regis Museum): "many of the spectacular fossils that were on loan for the latter went to Dinosaurland". --Qwfp (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2010 (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.