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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silk Route Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable organization. No indications of any significant coverage of this museum in any reliable sources. The only mentions to be found are trivial listings in various travel sites. Associations with Yasheng Group (whether that article be deleted or not) are not material to the notability of this organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Note: KatieBoundary, who has made several comments in this discussion, has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a disruptive user who has already been blocked in several accounts, over a period from 2009 onwards. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Per nomination. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 17:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wait until someone who can read Chinese searches for sources. It is quite likely we cannot find RS because they do not exist in English, and may only be in Chinese.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not one single reliable source, primary, secondary, or otherwise. Policing articles with groups of editors ignoring WP:RS is also not possible. KatieBoundary (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - falls foul of WP:RS.--Launchballer 21:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. An article doesn't have to meet RS. The sources may or may not meet RS, but while that's an argument one can make in a deletion discussion it cannot substitute for a deletion discussion which is, after all, about the topic, not about sources (though it can involve such discussion of course). Drmies (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you kidding me? For all we know, articles not containing any of them could be harbouring libellous content and/or copyright violations and/or original research. Are you out of your mind?--Launchballer 09:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The museum under discussion is in Gansu. I found nothing reliable on this place. There are other Chinese Silk Route or Silk Road Museums. One of the biggest is in Xinjiang: "Xinjiang Silk Road Museum", China Highlights; "China’s Africa Strategy Blossoms as Relationship Develops", China Briefing. Another one is in Ningxia: "China cultural news in brief: ancient residential site; Silk Road museum; French music festival ", People's Daily Online. An American Catholic priest wanted to build a Silk Road Museum in Kazakhstan, 20 miles from China.[1] There is one in Kyrgyzstan.[2][3] There is one in Kashgar near Kyrgyzstan.[4] There is a Silk Road Museum in Seoul, Korea: [5][6] There's also the Hirayama Ikuo Silk Road Museum in Hokuto, Yamanashi Prefecture, Japan. "Istanbul's Pera Museum explores Japanese art through two exhibits", Hürriyet Daily News, Istanbul. [7][8][9]. With all of these organizations competing for the sightseer's attention, notability is not acquired simply by existing.
   • Note that in the process of hunting for citations I found a trove of information on the 2009 Maritime Silk Road Museum or Marine Silk Road Museum located on a beach on Hailing Island adjacent to Yangjiang city in Guangdong province, China (China Heritage Quarterly, 2011, UNESCO Underwater Cultural Heritage. "The Guangdong Maritime Silk Road Museum", "Guangdong Maritime Silk Road Museum", Travel China Guide.) Somebody could write that article, about the museum built around the Nanhai boat preserved in beach sand. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for that Binksternet :) I shall write it when I get back on Saturday, if anyone here wishes to collaborate feel free. Also, could this article be merged into the Gansu article then instead of deleted?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think "merge" is far too kind of a word. This text would overbalance the Gansu article, but perhaps the museum can be mentioned briefly. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but ideally, merge/refactor Let's hear Chinese speakers on the lack of RS please - that there's nothing in English means little. The museum site incorporates a royal tomb site, & an article on that (which must be notable), including the museum, would be ideal. Or merge to Jiuquan - why are we talking about Gansu? That there are other museums on the same very large subject is a strange argument for deletion indeed, and China has lots of internal "sightseers". Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a confusing field, and I gave other editors here a flavor of how difficult is the search for sources when there are so many results that are off-target. My argument for deletion was simple: that no secondary reliable sources discuss the Gansu museum in any detail. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Johnbod, what is your source for saying "the museum site incorporates a royal tomb site" and your other assertions? KatieBoundary (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their website, assuming of course the whole thing is not a fabrication. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - WP:N says "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." So even if a Chinese newspaper cites this museum (so far no such source has been found), if the newspaper is owned by the same government that owns the museum, it would not qualify as a "third party source". Furthermore, reliability is required under WP:RS. Newspapers without journalistic standards that are censored by governments are not reliable. KatieBoundary (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The museum looks to be private to me, as many in China are, and most newspapers also. As no Chinese-speaker appears to have looked, it is hardly surprising that no Chinese sources have been found. Do you have any policy or RSN back-up or precedent for your apparent very POV suggestion that no Chinese newspaper is an RS? Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that no Chinese newspaper is RS - I said that if an entity owns a newspaper, and also owns the entity that is a topic of an article, then it is not a third party source. KatieBoundary (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Changed my vote to strong Keep (see note below) - Merge the information here into the Gansu article. I could find nothing outside of the Silk Route Museum website, but everything there indicates this is a real entity. If someone amongst us can search sources written in Chinese, this would be helpful. Someone made a comment that newspaper articles in Chinese newspapers are not reliable. I think it depends on what is said and how it is said. If an article keeps a neutral tone in reporting, rather than a public relations tone, I think this could be considered a reliable source, provided the newspaper has some respect. Newspapers in China have to toe the government line, so no one is likely to find a newspaper that has western standards of press independence. That does not mean everything in such newspapers should always be considered false. Bill Pollard (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why Gansu, the province? It is in Jiuquan the "city", in fact the area. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The evidence is that is is real, and it would make more sense to me to have this as a separate article , as we do most museums of more than purely local interest. Binksternet says , correctly, that it would overbalance the article on the locality, & when that is the case, a separate article is indicated. Rejecting a news source "if the newspaper is owned by the same government that owns the museum," is carrying "independent" in WP:RS a good deal too far. It would eliminate using any government source from anywhere for information about the country or anything in it. We could not, for example, use books published about national parks by the uS Dept of the Interior, or anything about the US government published by the Library of Congress. If this particular source on this particular topic is unreliable, we need some evidence of that, because official sources are presumed reliable about the plain facts of something. Attacking sources on this basis is the sort of radical skepticism which prevents writing anything at all, because it is conceivable that all sources on anything are prejudiced in some manner. (And I thank Binksternet for having identified a good many more museums about which we should have articles. Because of them, this should be retitled with a qualifier for the name of the place, and a disam page made. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, , what is your source for saying "the evidence is it is real"? What is the "newspaper source"? KatieBoundary (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with DGG and Johnbod. I don't see the point of deleting this when it is clear that the thing exists and, if it exists in the way and size in which it exists, it's a notable thing. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your WP:V source for "it is clear that the thing exists"? KatieBoundary (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The website of the museum has photos that show a very large museum with artifacts of early China. The photos appear to show the sam very large building that is centered in the Google satellite map link that is also on the museum's webpage. I think the museum exists. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same image, with the same people standing in the same places, that was up on the Yasheng Group website press release link, long before the museum was supposedly "developed and built". Then when all this discussion started, all the press releases prior to 2010 suddenly disappeared from the Yasheng Group web site. So did all of the press releases for the fantastic geological mining claims of supposed huge operations in the Gobi. Most museums post an address on their webpage, so people can get there. I looked for awhile, but maybe I am looking on the wrong subpages. Could you find a posted address? KatieBoundary (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The museum's "location" page [10] has a link to a Google Maps page [11]. The Google map gives a satellite image of a large building with a long entrance drive, the drive cut twice by smaller lateral roads. The main road appears to be G312, a national road in Su Zhou Qu, Jiuquan, Gansu, China. I have no idea whether this area uses a familiar Western form of addresses. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That is about the weirdest google image I have ever seen, and I look at weird geological formations alot. Have you looked around at that map image? Beyond the fact that the photo image for its front posted on its website is identical (even having the same people in it) to an image linked to in a Yasheng press release that predates the construction of the museum... take a look. Is there a Wiki Google Earth experts Project? KatieBoundary (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @DGG and @Drmies, what evidence do you see that this place really exists? This reference is a listing in a tourist site that the museum organization has most surely paid for; and this source actually links to the museum's own "about us" page as its "source". If (and I do say if) the allegations against Yasheng are true, and they are merely a fraudulent shell company, setting up a fraudulent charity in China (a fake museum) would be in line with the expected activities of Yasheng's founders. Since no reliable source can be found to verify the existence of this museum, any other claims made in the article about the size and significance of the museum cannot be verified either. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the note in the nom. Do you have any direct evidence it doesn't exist? Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Verifiable large museum, ergo notable. Museums in China are likely to have less internet presence and comment than those in the West. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your WP:V source for "Verifiable large museum"? KatieBoundary (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's blatantly obvious that it exists. Are you saying it doesn't? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say "it's blatantly obvious that it exists"? Why did you say "verifiable large museum"? What is your verifiable source? KatieBoundary (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources provided in the article are perfectly acceptable as verification that it exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Maritime Silk Route Museum was also created without establishing notability, then the creator disappeared off Wikipedia. It currently has no reliable source supporting anything in it. KatieBoundary (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not try and connect the 2009 article creation of Maritime Silk Route Museum to this deletion discussion. To me the two articles look completely unconnected. Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Jade Road article was created in violation WP:N, and has no sources. KatieBoundary (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Gansu Agricultural University was created in violation WP:N, and has no sources. KatieBoundary (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The above three entities are unrelated to this discussion. I can't at the moment find the Wikipedia guideline on this, but it roughly says we cannot tie the merits of an article currently going thru an AfD discussion to other articles, as an article under discussion must stand on its own merits, regardless of the merits or faults of other articles. Bill Pollard (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This museum surely exists. A review of it on Tripadvisor exists. And, yes, I know that Tripadvisor is not a reliable source. However, this tidbit does help show this museum exists, although it cannot be used in the article. Bill Pollard (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source for saying "This museum surely exists"? KatieBoundary (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment about Merge or Keep decision - If enough sources can be found, this article needs to be kept. Short of that, the most important info on this museum should be merged into the Jiuquan article. There is currently a sentence about it in the Gansu article. Bill Pollard (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in that article had no source and was deleted per WP:V. Please name a reliable source supporting "important info on this museum". KatieBoundary (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Copy of 2009 email discussion of this article by Silk Route Museum and Yasheng Group president, and the Yasheng Eco Trade executives and main Yasheng/Silk marketer is here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.235.139 (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. KatieBoundary, your strident and borderline aggressive comments directed at anyone who disagrees with you are not productive. Editors are putting across their point of view. You clearly disagree that this museum is notable, or even that it exists at all, but you are achieving nothing by questioning every contribution to the discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When a male enforces WP:V by asking for sources, it is called good editing. But when a female asks the same, it is called "strident" and "aggressive". "some key words that might indicate sexism in The Times — “shrill,” “strident,” “pantsuit” and “giggle,” among them" - New York Times. I'm going on a break and change from a pantsuit into an appropriate skirt before coming back. KatieBoundary (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you think my comment was based on the fact that you may be female? Trust me, it wasn't. I in no way associate either word with being female. You really do seem to have attitude issues. It is foolish in the extreme to accuse another editor of sexism when you know nothing about them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep or at least mention in Jiuquan, possibly under a Tourism section.

• As Binksternet mentioned, there are quite a few Silk Route/Road museums (丝绸之路博物馆) in China. In Chinese, there are more hits for the Maritime Silk Road Museum (广东海上丝绸之路博物馆) in Guangdong than for this museum. However, searching for it with Jiuquan 酒泉 "丝绸之路博物馆" [12] or Gansu 甘肃 "丝绸之路博物馆" [13] pops up the Google maps location [14]. The building is quite prominent in Satellite view.
• The place exists and does seem to meet WP:CORP. [All in Chinese] There is provincial and national coverage of its opening back in October 2009 [15][16][17], this local article about an exhibition at the museum last May [18] and this German sourced pdf that digs a bit into its background [19] (end of page 3 to 4). Other sources tend to focus on the developing cultural tourism industry within Jiuquan and cite the museum in passing [20][21][22].
• Funding methods aren't usually listed on museum pages and I don't see why the Yasheng Group is any different. There doesn't seem to be any direct connection between that fraud allegation and how this museum is run. Whatever complications or difficulties a company finds itself in shouldn't be able to sneak its way into loosely associated topics.
• Redirects to Gansu are a bit premature - it's a province, whereas Jiuquan would be the city it's actually situated in. I think the museum warrants an article, but I don't think this private museum is notable enough to be mentioned on its county/province/prefecture/region/state page. Funny ^Pika! 10:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources cited by FunnyPika are "reliable" per WP:RS. RS is required by WP:V. V is required by WP:N. WP:N fails. (This is on top of the fact that not a single sentence in the article is cited by any RS, and each utterly fails V. And there is nothing tying that strange satellite image to any museum, especially as the same image was used by Yasheng Group in its adverts - before the museum was supposedly "built" from the ground up.) KatieBoundary (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Gansu Daily article satisfies WP:RS. Using Google's translation function I can see that the article is titled "Gansu Silk Road Museum was completed and opened". The reporter calls the museum one of a series of "foreign built cultural industry projects cum heritage conservation" and that it opened September 28, 2009. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view they meet WP:RS; specifically as facts from either news organisations, government organisations or NGOs. I don't understand how someone can come to the conclusion that a source is unreliable without actually reading the source first. All I can see at the moment is random policy pointing without an explanation on how they are relevant to this specific discussion. Please elaborate on why these are "unreliable" and what otherwise would be considered a reliable source. Funny ^Pika! 16:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to Keep above. The reason is I examined the above user's arguments and examined many of the sources. I also found the museum (at coordinates 39.7706, 98.4327). If this article is kept we need to incorporate the sources used in the above argument. Bill Pollard (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A source must be established as reliable, not presumed reliable. Who are the owners of the publication? Who is the author of the article? What are the editorial policies of the publisher? Are there COI's here? What are the journalism standards of publication? Just claiming to be a newspaper does not make it a reliable source. If there is a source that can be established as reliable, and significant coverage, then I will change my vote to keep. I changed my first view of deleting the Yasheng article to a vote of "keep", based on finding a news article, but I changed it back to "delete" after finding out that the source was not reliable. KatieBoundary (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we were supposed to "establish" a source as reliable instead of making a judgement call then the encyclopedia expansion would slow to a crawl. Every day hundreds of editors make judgements about what is reliable and what is not. Instead of having to establish reliability before use, we have the WP:RSN for questioning reliability, so your appreciation is somewhat reversed regarding how Wikipedia does it. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, we must make judgment calls. But declaring something to be a reliable source must be based on evidence. The reason some news sources are considered reliable, and others not, is that some have standards or COIs that do not meet WP standards. Otherwise, anyone can create a Wikipedia article by simply putting "Daily News" on their website. I reviewed WP:RSN you linked to. Thanks. But I do not see the point of involving others unless evidence presented for reliability does not convince editors, who can go there. I will change my vote to keep, if there is evidence of no COI, and reliability of the article author and news source editorial policy, presented here. KatieBoundary (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a discussion that those of us who are not readers of Chinese will have difficulty pursuing - we should probably leave it those who are. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Changed my conclusion per evidence from FunnyPika. Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.