Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Museums and libraries

Ruth and Elmer Wellin Museum of Art

Ruth and Elmer Wellin Museum of Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested Prod: Prod nom was: Fails WP:NORG, sourced entirely to the museums own website and a single database, a WP:BEFORE search for sources turned up Primary sources, social media and databases. The prod was endorsed by @Bearian: as: Poorly sourced and spam-like stub about a college art gallery; possibly redirect. Prod contested as "removed prod which mentioned that some sources had been found so there may be others. College art museums are valuable art repositories and study centers in many if not most instances" but vague handwaving at the possible existence of sources is not an argument. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 16:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Education, and New York. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 16:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect (or selective merge) to the Hamilton College. Some college galleries are significant repositories of alumni and regional art, and some are just student art projects. Bearian (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Not the largest or most important museum in the world, but has a new expensive building, a decent-sized (7,000 objects) and very varied collection, at least 10 staff, an excellent website, and so on. Bearian, this is certainly neither a "repository of alumni and regional art" nor a "student art project", so I don't know the relevance of those comments! If it loses here, it should be merged to the college pretty much in its entirety. I wonder if the WP:BEFORE searches used the right search terms - very often they don't. "Wellin Museum of Art" seems to be what the college itself uses, and before 2012 it was called the "Emerson Gallery". Seerches on both these produce plenty of results. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  "Searches on both these produce plenty of results" again a vague handwave plus the sources that came up in my before search was as I stated: Primary sources, social media and databases aka not SIGCOV in independent reliable independent secondary sources. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 17:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's your nom, and your responsibility to do proper WP:BEFORE, not mine. Have you actually done careful searches on those names? Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes I did a proper search, your the one arguing keep so its on you to showcase how WP:GNG/WP:NORG etc. are met. Vague handwaving at Google search etc. is literally listed in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (expanded at WP:TMBS). Also per WP:DAN and WP:ATTP baselessly accusing me of not performing a "proper WP:BEFORE" is an ad hominen especially when combined with a vague handwave towards google search. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 23:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  You are pretty handy with the abuse, and a blizzard of policy chaff. Here's a lengthy magazine review of an exhibition there, very easily found. Excuse me if I remain dubious about your WP:BEFORE. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  pretty handy with the abuse calling out your argument as an ad hominen is not abuse. blizzard of policy chaff calling an argument grounded in multiple policies "chaff" is also an ad hominen Now as to your magazine review, 1 source =/= WP:NORG/WP:GNG, the review only briefly talks about the gallery itself the introductory section so can't really be used to say a lot about the gallery itself. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 10:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  Nonsense - reviews of exhibitions are always taken as contributing to the notability of the institution. If you worked more in this area you'd know that. They don't have to dwell on the state of the air conditioning or parking etc. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I removed all the embedded link to the primary source. I also ran the article through Earwig's Copyvio Detector and got a 78.2% Violation suspected score. I am seeing if there are any RS to turn this into a stub. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Lavalizard, why have you failed to add this to the single most obvious sorting list Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Museums and libraries??? Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Why didn't you Johnbod? We all work together here. That said, I do agree that the WP:BURDEN is on you figure out how you would add your sources to the article that is some way raises this article to stand-alone status.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an Afd launcher, and don't know how to do that shit. Thank you for doing what the nom failed to. No, the burden of a PROPER WP:before is fully on the nom. Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Again baselessly accusing me of not performing a "proper WP:BEFORE" is an ad hominen. And you have had 2 people now pointing to how the Burden is on keep votes to show how GNG/Notability is met, that is the entire point of how AFD works. Vague handwaving to google search/search results is literally listed in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as stated above. And trying to get me to "prove" I have performed a proper before is asking me to prove a negative and also technically against WP:SATISFY if repeated. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 10:34, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

It was extremely easy to find the lengthy review, which at the very least should have been mentioned. I only spent a couple of minutes looking, because I'm just not that bothered. I'm quite sure a longer, PROPER before would turn up tons more. Call this your favourite phrase "vague handwaving" if you like, but it is not ad hominem to state that your BEFORE was inadequate to say the least. Your repeated abuse and agressive posture on an Afd you launched for no good reason is unimpressive. Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hamilton College. I removed all the text lifted directly from the website (Wikipedia:Copyright violations). WP:TOOSOON for a stand alone article. I will try to add some RS on the building, but all I am finding is promo piece on the architects website --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Selectively merge to Hamilton College. This page has had a long history of conflict of interest concerns, and while it's important for museums like these to be covered on Wikipedia, this topic simply does not have the notability required of a separate page. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I'd be open to merge/redirect as an atd. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 10:34, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Johnbod, the art museum seems notable and sourced. Since the "Before" part of this nomination seems a bit lacking, as pointed out by Johnbod, and the museum is well situated within both the college and the art community, better to maintain the encyclopedia by keeping it. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  Your argument is essentially ATA 1.5/WP:TMBS. I did a WP:BEFORE search, I'm not seeing evidence of WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 14:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  Please don't link to essays without mentioning they are essays, thanks. Essays have nothing to do with guidelines or policy and are essentially editorial opinion. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  Only the first two links are essays. The sentence I did a WP:BEFORE search, I'm not seeing evidence of WP:GNG or WP:NORG links to two guidelines, and you haven't refuted the central point of Lavalizard101's argument in that sentence. Gramix13 (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Hamilton College. I tried searching for news sources on the museum to see if notability was established. I quickly noticed that the vast majority of sources from my search are directly from the college's website, which we cannot use to establish notability as they are primary sources instead of secondary sources. Of the sources that are not directly from the collage's website,

• I found some articles on Hyperallergic about the museum, but some of them^[1] were directly written by the museum and even labeled as sponsored, making the source not independent of the subject. Another one I found^[2] was independent of the museum, but it's moreso about a specific exhibit at the museum, rather than the museum itself directly, so I don't see the coverage here as significant enough for establishing notability. As an aside, I did hit the limit to the number of free articles I can view on Hyperallergic while writing this comment, so these two sources are not exhaustive, but some other sources I found but couldn't review fully include^[3][4][5][6]
• There was an insignificant mention of the museums by the Daily Sentinel (Rome, New York) at the very end of the article, stating "Total Response is co-organized by the Ruth and Elmer Wellin Museum of Art, Nep Sidhu, without SHAPE without FORM, and the Performing Arts Series at Hamilton College."^[7]
• There was an interview of the founding director in artnet^[8], but I would argue this is not independent of the source as it is solely an interview of someone directly involved at the museum.
• There was an article in Black Art In America about an exhibit^[9], and while I think it is significant coverage of the museum, I don't believe this source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that is expected of a reliable source, and I had found no prior discussion of it on WP:RSP.
• There was another article in Galerie Magazine^[10], but similar to the last source, this source hasn't been discussed before, so I don't think it has the reputation required of a reliable source.
• There was an interview of an artist who's work was exhibited at the museum^[11] which I don't find to be significant enough as it doesn't go into much detail on the museum directly.
• There was a brief article on yet another exhibit at the museum yet not going into detail on the museum directly^[12]
• There was an obituary^[13] of Keith S. Wellin, briefly explaining how the museum got its name via a gift by Wellin. While I think article would be fine to cite on its own, for establishing notability, I don't think the nod is significant enough for establishing notability, especially when Keith S. Wellin is not an article already.

So what are my takeaways from all this research? What I found was that of the sources independent of the museum, almost all of them covered the exhibits that were present at the museum or the artists presenting at those museums, and none of them significantly covered the museum directly. If I was asked to write an article about the museum using only the articles I found here, I would honestly struggle to see how I could write about it directly which is why we require significant coverage in the first place. Now I will admit that my analysis of the sources could be faulty, and in particular I might be underestimating the significance that the sources treat the museum, and my search wasn't exhaustive of every source out there (just the ones on the "News" section of a google search of the name of the museum), so this doesn't rule out the possibility of notability. My finding though is that, from what I've seen, that evidence is not present currently, and so a redirect would be appropriate (with deletion as a second choice). The burden of demonstrating notability is still on those arguing to keep the article. Gramix13 (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this careful research, but I think you are misunderstanding what makes any museum notable. To a very large extent it is the permanent collection, aka "the exhibits that were present at the museum", almost to the exclusion of anything else! As I say above, coverage of the air conditioning or the parking and other incidental aspects of the institution are far less significant. People go to museums to see the exhibits. In the case of a museum like this the sources you have found go to establish notability, even if you don't realize it, so thank you for that. Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Well I would argue that most of the sources covering different exhibits would be considered routine coverage (see WP:ORGTRIV) of what's going on at the museum, falling under trivial coverage that would be insufficient to count as significant coverage. To quote WP:ORGDEPTH, Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. If these sources went beyond discussing the exhibits and got into the museum itself, giving us more to write about than merely the exhibits, I would be inclined to believe that significant coverage exists, but I didn't find any sources that were significant enough without being independent (the artnet interview I cited above would be an example of a source that has significant coverage yet is not independent in my opinion). An article about the museum should have enough notability about itself, and I don't think the presence of exhibits make a museum notable by virtue.

Also, my view on redirecting this article isn't something I'm strongly held to; if others look at these sources and a consensus forms that agrees with you that it is actually significant coverage, then I'd be perfectly OK if that's the outcome here and might even change my !vote if I find it convincing enough. I fully accepted that being a possibility when I wrote out my analysis, but really what matters isn't whether we keep or delete the article, but rather what's best for the encyclopedia, and so if my listing ends up contributing to a consensus towards a keep, I would walk away from this AFD happy knowing that I played a part in forming the consensus on the article. Gramix13 (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

This is all rather wierd frankly - what is it about a museum that would make it notable if not the objects in its collection? The food in the restaurant? What is "the museum itself"? It is the collection; everything else is merely arrangements to ensure the safe-keeping and display of the collection. "I don't think the presence of exhibits make a museum notable by virtue" is a very strange, and I'm afraid wrong thing to say, and certainly not how we treat museums normally. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Howe, Steve (2022-10-25). "Wellin Museum's 10-year anniversary exhibit prioritizes 'real collaborations with artists'". Observer-Dispatch. NewsBank 18D5FBBD2ECAA340. Archived from the original on 2026-06-29. Retrieved 2026-06-29.

     The article notes: "The Ruth and Elmer Wellin Museum of Art at Hamilton College's 10th anniversary has allowed staff, faculty, students and visitors to reflect on its impact with a special exhibition. "Dialogues Across Disciplines," which opened Sept. 17, contains a selection of more than 140 artworks from the museum's collection dating back to 63 B.C. More than 100 artists are represented in the exhibition, ranging from pottery and sculpture to photographs and video. ... In the past decade, the Wellin has acquired more than 2,000 pieces. Planning for the show — and trimming the selections to around 140 pieces — began more than a year ago. ... Every artist featured in a headlining exhibition at the Wellin has at least one piece featured in the show, located at the cardinal directions in the exhibition space. Those pieces, along with the others installed to show the breadth of work in the exhibition, will be accompanied by insight from staff, faculty and student docents."

  2. Rushworth, Katherine (2012-12-03). "New museum at Hamilton College showcases the institution's permanent collection". The Post-Standard. NewsBank 142F45D1D72F0730.

     The article notes: "If it’s the new Ruth and Elmer Wellin Museum of Art at Hamilton College in Clinton, the answer is a decided and emphatic, “Yes.” The museum, which was two years in planning and construction, opened on Oct. 6 and, based on the steady stream of visitors through the galleries on a recent fall afternoon, it seems the word is out that the Wellin is something to see. The museum, designed by Machado and Silvetti Associates Architecture and Urban Design, is more than a repository for works of art. The museum is a teaching laboratory that engages the permanent collection as a spring board to broader learning and questioning. ... Accessibility to the collection is apparent as soon as you step through the front doors. Greeting you with open arms are 27 foot glass storage cases running down both sides of the main hall, known as the Archive Hall. They stand like gargantuan cabinets of curiosities displaying 90 percent of the three-dimensional works from the college’s collection. There are ceramic objects dating from the Greek and Roman times, ancient glass, Chinese ritual bronzes and Native American art from the Central Plains and Northwest coast. The cases are sparsely filled with the intention of adding to the collection over time. There are also no interpretative texts, which is part of the engagement process."

  3. Tracey, Sara (2012-09-23). "Hamilton welcoming work of art - Wellin Museum of Art opening to benefit students, community". Observer-Dispatch. p. 1D. NewsBank 1418454927E4DC30.

     The article notes: "Art at Hamilton College used to reside in Emerson Gallery, the bottom floor of the Christian Johnson Hall, a space some say was too small for its use. Now, after a $10 million gift and a little more than a year of construction, the Ruth and Elmer Wellin Museum of Art will house two stories of permanent and traveling collections. The new building, as one would guess being on a college campus, is first and foremost a teaching museum. Every aspect of the space - from the exhibits that will be shown there, to the transparent glass design elements - allows for visual teaching moments. ... The museum is officially opening Oct. 6, with a soft opening Oct. 4 primarily for the Hamilton community. On Oct. 5, the school will hold a ceremony dedicating the museum to its namesakes, the parents of alumnus Keith Wellin. Wellin and his wife, Wendy, donated the $10 million gift that was elemental in getting the museum started."

  4. "New art museum set to open in Clinton". Oneida Dispatch. 2012-09-14. NewsBank 16E1B4AEE6CE0948. Archived from the original on 2026-06-29. Retrieved 2026-06-29.

     The article notes: "The Ruth and Elmer Wellin Museum of Art, a Machado and Silvetti-designed teaching museum, will open to the public at Hamilton College on Saturday, Oct. 6. The 30,537-square-foot museum, located at the corner of College Hill and Griffin Roads, will put object-based learning at the fore, promoting interdisciplinary research vital to a liberal arts education. The museum will also invite emerging and established artists to develop projects specifically for the museum."

  5. "Wellin Museum debuts at Hamilton College". Daily Sentinel. 2013-02-15. Retrieved 2026-06-29 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "A new community resource, the Ruth and Elmer Wellin Museum of Art, opened its doors last fall on the Hamilton College cam-pus. Providing more than 30,000 square feet dedicated to the celebration of the visual arts, the museum was constructed primarily with materials and labor from the Central New York region. The first free-standing building built since the early 1970s, the museum is designed as a teaching facility promoting interdisciplinary research and the cross-fertilization of concepts and ideas vital to a liberal arts education."

  6. Schwabsky, Barry (December 2023). "Rhona Bitner: Ruth and Elmer Wellin Museum of Art". Artforum. Vol. 62, no. 4. p. 123. EBSCOhost 173839658. Gale A776420794. Archived from the original on 2026-06-29. Retrieved 2026-06-29.

     The review notes: "Pervading the exhibition is the artist’s intuition of the essentially—but tragically—theatrical nature of photography, which makes a spectacle of the spectacle being over. Consider her ongoing “Pointe” series, begun in 2020, still lifes (but also portraits in a way, and in another way landscapes) of battered, mutilated toe shoes that ballerinas have worn to pieces. But the pathos of the shuttered theater may be most affecting in a series that has nothing overtly to do with performance—though its title, “Ghost Light,” 2020, refers to the bulb left lit, for safety reasons, above center stage in otherwise darkened, unoccupied theaters."

  7. Lorenz, Carol Ann (Winter 2020). "Elias Sime: Tightrope, curated by Tracy L. Adler. Ruth and Elmer Wellin Museum of Art, Hamilton College, Clinton, NY September 7–December 8, 2019". African Arts. 53 (4): 86–89. doi:10.1162/afar_r_00554. Project MUSE 773264.

     The review notes: "Gracing the expansive Dietrich Exhibition Gallery at the Wellin Museum of Art (Figs. 1–2), the exhibition Elias Sime: Tightrope presented twenty-eight large-scale wall-mounted compositions, many of them between 10 and 21 feet wide, as well as two three-dimensional installation works. A film produced for the exhibition included commentary by the artist and footage about his work and process. The film also documented Elias Sime’s association with the Zoma Contemporary Art Center and its successor, the Zoma Museum (dedicated in 2019) in Addis Ababa, an art project in its own right."

  8. Stapley-Brown, Victoria (October 2015). "Weaving together a better understanding of history". The Art Newspaper. Vol. 25, no. 272. p. 38. EBSCOhost 110121312.

     The review notes: "Clinton, New York. Identity and narrative are at the core of two concurrent shows at the Ruth and Elmer Wellin Museum of Art. Karen Hampton: the Journey North includes around 45 of the artist's works (19 are new). Her work - which combines embroidery, sewing, weaving and image transfers - includes references to Hamp-ton's ancestor, eight generations back, who was born a slave and became a landowner in early 19th-century Florida."

  9. Howe, Steve (2022-05-12). "Labor of Love: Family connection fueled art exhibition at Hamilton College museum". Observer-Dispatch. NewsBank 189F3CE820CD5E90. Archived from the original on 2026-06-29. Retrieved 2026-06-29.

     The article notes: "The first impression of Yashua Klos' artwork is one of scale. Upon entering Klos' exhibition, "Our Labour," at Hamilton College's Wellin Museum of Art through June 12, the namesake piece dominates the space. An homage to Diego Rivera's "Detroit Industry Murals," "Our Labour" soars to the ceiling and spans 38 feet across. ... The intersection of labor and self care are common through the works in the "Our Labour" exhibition. Michigan wildflowers are twined through the pieces, while man-made elements like bricks and car parts are intermingled."

  10. Ober, Cara (2024-03-10). "Seven Baltimore-based artists on the rise — and on display across the nation". The Baltimore Banner. Factiva BMORBAN020240310ek3a0002w. Archived from the original on 2026-06-29. Retrieved 2026-06-29.

      The article notes: "From the cosmos to the disco, from Montezuma to Liberace, ”René Treviño: Stab of Guilt,” on view through June 9 at the Wellin Museum of Art at Hamilton College in Clinton, New York, offers a gorgeous, vibrant take on queer human history that manages to be inclusive of everyone. It’s a wow from start to finish, with bold color, glitz and exquisite detail accumulated with such vivacity that the beauty almost belies an exhibit densely laden in historical, scientific and sociological research. This is Treviño’s first museum survey, and the visual artist has been able to accumulate and incorporate all of the topics he has explored for over 20 years — astronomy, Maya and Aztec history, Catholic symbolism, pop culture and queer theory — in nearly 200 works created since 2008, including a new series of “star chart” collages created specifically for this institution."

  11. Curry, Ebony JJ (2026-04-01). "Detroit Artist Jamea Richmond-Edwards Brings Her Largest Exhibition to Wellin Museum of Art". Michigan Chronicle. pp. B1–B2. NewsBank 1A7394F991636A80. ProQuest 3326888959. Archived from the original on 2026-06-29. Retrieved 2026-06-29.

      The article notes: "Detroit artist Jamea Richmond-Edwards is the subject of the largest exhibition of her career at the Wellin Museum of Art at Hamilton College, where Another World and Yet the Same remains on view through June 14, 2026. The exhibition features a new body of large-scale work alongside collage-based paintings from the last seven years. Together, the pieces explore race, class, identity, family, style, memory, and the political and emotional weight of imagining a different world while standing inside this one. ... The exhibition title comes from a 17th-century dystopian text, Mundus alter et idem, or Another World and Yet the Same, which imagined a voyage to a different world as a critique of the existing one."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ruth and Elmer Wellin Museum of Art to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Regarding Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages, I oppose a merge as there is enough information in the sources to support a standalone article. There is enough information to support detailed sections about the museum's history, facilities, and exhibitions. It would be undue weight to cover that information in Hamilton College, the article about the university. Cunard (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep due to extensive source finding done by Cunard.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above by Cunard and the lengthy magazine review linked earlier that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I voted Keep above, but many thanks to Cunard for their diligent digging, & showing the self-proclaimed AFD specialists how a proper WP:BEFORE is actually done. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Science tourism

Science tourism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Largely unencyclopedic article, pretty clear case of WP:NOTDB. Seems like something that should be on wikivoyage. OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Travel and tourism, Science, and Technology. OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, this seems to run afoul of WP:NOTTRAVEL, being something like a list of suggested science-related tourist spots, rather than an article about "science tourism" itself. I don't see anything salvageable here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation. Damn, as someone who enjoys science tourism and these kinds of sites, I was hoping this would be a good page that would be a valid navigational list, but it's really bad. The first section is a random selection from List of science museums that doesn't add much, and then I had to delete the list of US national labs since although several technically have limited tours, none are actually tourist destinations nor was there context about such. Not all of the observatories listed are actually able to be regularly visted by the public, and it's otherwise very incomplete. The Universities section is incredibly generic and pointless, and the "Other" is embarassingly useless by not even saying where these random selections of things are! But LOL about the nomination statement, after writing this I looked at the edit history and the page was literally copied from https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Science_tourism in 2018; this doesn't belong here. Reywas92^Talk 04:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to Keep and stubify as it has been improved with sources that can justify an article, but I would like to delete the list content that was copied from Wikivoyage. Reywas92^Talk 14:44, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment The news media does use the phrase "science tourism" https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/charlotte/news/2024/08/12/north-carolina-science-trail-science-tourism- https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20241021-are-you-really-helping-when-you-join-an-expedition-tour https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/travel/science-tourism-cern-fermilab.html however this isn't an article like Space tourism, just a pointless list since every science museum, research facility, or trip could be put on it . Dream Focus 07:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 07:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of science museums. There is probably space for an article on this topic, but so far this is not it, and it is better to be redirected until a real article is done. --cyclopia^speak! 10:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'd specifically oppose this. There's no information about science tourism at the destination, so it's a misleading redirect. Someone searching for this would presumably (and should) be expecting some sort of encyclopedic information about the topic, but that's not present at the proposed target. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think Science museum would be a better redirect target, and it could include a bit about visitor centers or tours of other sites that aren't strictly museums. — Reywas92^Talk 19:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of science museums and allow recreation if a fair article can be created. Shankargb (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Soft redirect as {{wikivoyage redirect}} and merge (if necessary) to Wikivoyage:Science tourism until such a time that sources are collected or exist that allow a more enyclopedic article. Seems to cover all the concerns presented. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Lundberg, Erik; Persson, Maria; Jernsand, Eva Maria (2022). "Science tourism: A conceptual development". Tourism, Knowledge and Learning. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. pp. 26–39. doi:10.4324/9781003293316-3. ISBN 978-1-032-27488-1. Retrieved 2026-06-26.

     The article notes: "Science tourism is defined as an activity in which individuals travel, outside of their home environment, “to learn about or participate in science” (Packer, 2015, p.930), or more specifically, as tourism where “science, scientific knowledge, and/or engagement in scientific research” (Räikkönen et al., 2021, p.2) is the core of tourists’ motivation and experiences (Räik-könen et al., 2019; Räikkönen etal., 2021). Science tourism is most often depicted as a niche or special interest tourism within other forms of tourism, such as exploration and adventure tourism, cultural tourism, volunteer tourism, nature-based tourism, ecotourism or learning and educational tourism (Mao & Bourlon, 2011; Packer, 2015; Räikkönen et al., 2021)."

  2. Packer, Jan (2015). "Science Tourism". In Gunstone, Richard (ed.). Encyclopedia of Science Education. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 930–932. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2150-0_337. ISBN 978-94-007-2150-0.

     The article notes: "Science tourism is travel outside one’s usual environment to learn about or participate in science. It includes specific types of tourism that are motivated by an interest in science, visitation of attractions that present science, travel to sites or events of scientific significance, science volunteer tourism, and school science field trips. ... Other types of special interest tourism with a science focus are also emerging. For example, space tourism offers opportunities for recreational space travel that may involve not only learning science but also participating in research activities while in orbit. Another emerging form of tourism known as “last chance tourism” involves traveling to places that are threatened by environmental factors such as climate change or overpopulation, in order to experience and learn about these places before it is “too late.” ... Tourists increasingly search for unusual and unique experiences. These may include travel to sites of scientific significance, travel to witness science phenomena, or travel to attend science events. Examples of significant sites are the Galapagos Islands, where visitors can follow in the footsteps of Charles Darwin; the Kennedy Space Center, where visitors can take a tour of NASA’s launch sites and even view a launch; and the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), where visitors can learn about the fundamental research done at the world’s largest particle physics laboratory."

  3. Räikkönen, Juulia; Grénman, Miia; Rouhiainen, Henna; Honkanen, Antti; Sääksjärvi, Ilari E (2021). "Conceptualizing nature-based science tourism: a case study of Seili Island, Finland". Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 31. doi:10.1080/09669582.2021.1948553.

     The article notes: "In contrast, science tourism is leisure tourism in which science, scientific knowledge, and/or engagement in scientific research are essential for tourist motivation and tourism experiences (Räikkönen et al., 2019). Science tourism is an extension of educational tourism that developed from the Grand Tours of the 17th–19th centuries (Ritchie et al., Citation2003). Here, we follow and further conceptualize this latter approach and address nature-based science tourism in light of tourist motivation."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow scientific tourism to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I expanded the article with these sources. Cunard (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  • What about merging this to Tourism#Forms of tourism alongside the sections for space, water, and winter, or even turning List of adjectival tourisms#Science and education into a prose section? This is good but I think the entire rest of the article should still be deleted, and this is just another selection of examples. There's also nature tourism and other pages that these sources relate to. — Reywas92^Talk 14:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
    • I think there is enough content in the sources to support a standalone article. The encyclopedia entry for science tourism in Packer 2015 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPacker2015 (help) is 747 words. The other two sources I listed also discuss science tourism in extensive detail. There are many other sources in a Google Scholar search that I didn't list here. Cunard (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Cunard. WP:HEY. Thanks to the editor! (I stroke my previous !vote above) --cyclopia^speak! 12:03, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. Good rescue by Cunard. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The article now has reliable, independent sources which pass WP:GNG The recent improvement show the topic is encyclopedic and worth keeping. Staticspector (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:09, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with others, it passes the general notability guidelines now. Dream Focus 02:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY, it can still use improvement, but the topic is obviously encyclopedic and the issues are WP:SURMOUNTABLE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:23, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Tampa Bay Automobile Museum

Tampa Bay Automobile Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Clearly fails WP:NORG, no WP:SIGCOV and is currently written in a highly WP:PROMO style. My search did not turn up any in-depth, significant coverage outside of generic top 10 lists and local news coverage (WP:LOCALCORP) Yojo98 (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Transportation, and Florida. Yojo98 (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
• As the article creator, I recommend Keep. The Tampa Bay Automobile Museum meets WP:NORG and WP:GNG through significant independent coverage in reliable sources including Hagerty, Bay News 9, Tampa Bay Times, and USA TODAY 10Best. The current version is neutral and focuses on its specialized collection of pioneering vehicles. Deletion is premature for a 20+ year old public institution with established notability in automotive heritage. Hektor (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  If the museum has significant coverage from several different reliable, independent sources, those sources should be used to write the content of the article, and be properly cited. Right now three of the four sources are the museum's own website, and the fourth does not particularly provide any important information about the museum. Could you link to the sources you mentioned to help the rest of us determine notability? dylansan (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  In addition to dylansan's point about providing sources you claim prove notability, I would point you to WP:LOCALCORP for notability guidelines around local media coverage. Additionally, top 10 or 100 lists are generally trivial for measuring notability per WP:CORPTRIV Yojo98 (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: If there are sources, they aren't being provided whatsoeve. In solidarity, FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 20:40, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NORG search results didn't turn up any secondary sources with WP:SIGCOV. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Some other sources: (Yes, PolyPack source is questionable as Alain Cerf created PolyPack. The key part is to look up Alain Cerf.) (the video not the text) I see potential to expand the article. – The Grid (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  Comment on those sources - 1 and 2 are local tourism boards and are written in a WP:PROMO style, not suitable for proving notability. You mentioned the issue with source 3, 4 is paywalled so I can't comment on it. 5 is a WP:PASSING mention of the museum's collection, it's mostly about the car itself. 6 and 7 are WP:LOCALCORP coverage. I haven't seen one WP:RS that is at least state-level, or hopefully national/international, to prove notability. Yojo98 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  Does it need to be at the state level? The news stations are in the Tampa Bay area audience. There's no hard-coded explanation of what a "regional newspaper " is (see where the link goes). I already stated that you need to look up Alan Cerf to find more about the museum.

  • Tampa Bay Magazine "Amazing Engineering" July/August 2005

  – The Grid (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  See the last line of WP:LOCALCORP: "Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town), or media of limited interest and circulation (e.g., a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job), is not an indication of notability. At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." Regional is earlier in that policy defined as "(e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state)." The Tampa Bay Magazine source you just provided would strike me as smaller than regional, but I know this is complicated by Tampa Bay being both Tampa and St. Pete.

  While I do think that this most recent source is in-depth and reliable, it seems to me to be local coverage. Ideally for a Museum or Organization like this, you would want sources from a larger level of coverage to prove notability. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes a repository for every museum in the world. Yojo98 (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't agree on it being local coverage. WP:SIRS applies on the assessment. You even stated it's an indepth and reliable source. It's not either/or. – The Grid (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  While I agree that the coverage seems in-depth and reliable, the local nature of it would violate the significant portion of WP:SIRS, IMO. I think this is a perfectly fine source to provide reliable information in the article, but I don't think it should be used to establish notability. So far, I haven't seen any sources with a reach beyond WP:LOCALCORP, including those currently in the article. I would want to see something with ideally a national reach that discusses the subject in depth, which hasn't been turned up so far (not to say that it doesn't exist). Yojo98 (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  It all depends on what the closing admin says. There has to be some form of diligence. I think you're too quick to brush off some of the content posted. – The Grid (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  I did the minimum searches required by the WP:DILIGENCE as well as flipping through a few pages of regular Google results. Everything that turned up was either passing coverage, local, or coverage in niche car magazines / websites.

  I'm certainly interested in if more sources exist based on searching for the founder, but in my brief searches this morning that didn't seem to be the case. I'd be happy if we could turn up a few WP:RS for this, but it doesn't seem like that's the case to me. Yojo98 (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Another source with an indepth story from Tampa Bay Times: – The Grid (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Another story from 2005. – The Grid (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Notability established per the sources I found in my previous replies: – The Grid (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Although the article lists only a few sources, I can see that editors have provided enough sources in this discussion, which I believe are sufficient to establish notability. Xcccccccc123 (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Clearly fails notability, the coverage in newspapers is not WP:SIGCOV. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep : I would too recommend keeping as per the sources provided by The Grid. Chronos.Zx (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis would be useful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:40, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I've done more reading over Wikipedia policy and the sources the Grid provided (thank you so much for all your research in this endeavor), and I'd say that if the Tampa Bay Times qualifies as a regional newspaper under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)/Audience requirement, then I would withdraw this nomination and be in favor of keep. While all the other sources are regional as well (local news stations and tourism boards), it seems that the coverage by the Tampa Bay Times, which is in-depth and independent, would satisfy requirements for notability.

However, as the article stands now it certainly needs an over-hall to remove primary sources. I'm not particularly interested in doing so, but I hope someone will take up that task Yojo98 (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: for now, given the large number of plausible sources posted in this AfD discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)