Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of churches in Florence


 * 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The result was Keep/nom withdrawn (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

List of churches in Florence

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. • Freechild   'sup?   18:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. • Freechild   'sup?   13:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note Additionally, it replicates Category:Churches in Florence. • Freechild   'sup?   01:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. We aren't the yellow pages, either. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 18:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. That's right, Wikipedia is not a directory.  Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even given that only notable churches should have articles, and that non-notable churches should not be redlinked, this is nevertheless an obviously useful indexing page.  There are many churches in Florence that merit articles. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - there's no reason for deleting this that wouldn't apply equally to all lists in Wikipedia. Waggers 20:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep.  In WP:NOT it states: Wikipedia is not the yellow pages.  A listing of places (like churches in my opinion) in a city would qualify as this.  Despite this, the argumentst presented by all above have persuaded me to ignore this, and change to keep. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 20:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The arguments of all the previous respondents who have indicated "Keep" are most telling, whilst the arguments of Freechild and others would, if adhered to across the board, mean almost all "list of..." articles would be deleted from wikipedia, and are most unconvincing. The deletion that might occur in that last case would be a great loss generally, and most specifically in this case.    DDStretch    (talk)  21:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am baffled that churches can be considered "indisciminate information". --Paularblaster 01:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * keep A good set encyclopedic information befitting WP. The only thing indiscriminate here is the deletion nomination and the additional misrepresentation of the facts regarding the content of the article. And these nominations are a waste of our time. Hmains 03:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is becoming tedious in the extreme to duplicate identical counter-arguments in every similar AfD Freechild has proposed regarding lists of churches. I suggest people look through the other nominations and note the general issues regarding deletion that people have raised there. In fact, I suggest all of the nominations are immediately closed and the nominator invited to resubmit them as a "job lot", so they can be considered together. There are about 6 or so of them.  DDStretch    (talk)  12:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list contains encyclopedic information that is not duplicated in the category. It is certainly not "an indiscriminate collection of information" as claimed by Freechild and it is not in breach of the WP:NOT policy. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Another note. In addition to clearly violating WP:NOT, this is listcruft and there are plenty of current precedents, including List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana (2nd nomination) and List of shopping malls in Malaysia. • Freechild   'sup?   03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Could it be that shopping malls and churches are not entirely comparable? (although both sociologically and architecturally shopping malls have many points of interest); and could it even be - it is with hesitancy that I make the suggestion - that "churches in Florence" and "churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana" might not be entirely comparable either? --Paularblaster 01:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. List of historic churches in a very historic city, a large proportion of which are worthy of their own articles. Lists are not rendered irrelevant by categories, as Lists clearly states. -- Necrothesp 09:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note Since there are no citations on the page and there is no content of notable reference, this list clearly violates WP:V. • Freechild   'sup?   17:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is so clear, I am puzzled why it did not form part of the justification for the initial AfD. Similarly, if it lacks citations, then label it as such (the templates are there to be used). An immediate AfD is an extreme first step to take. I suggest you withdraw this AfD, as you have already done with at least one other, and issue the appropriate warning labels if required.  DDStretch    (talk)  18:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To quote the page you have just cited: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." In what way is this material likely to be challenged? It's not controversial and it contains no quotations. Please don't claim that policies or guidelines justify your opinion when they clearly don't. Unreferenced pages are not automatic candidates for AfDs. -- Necrothesp 21:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am challenging the verifiability of the material in this list with this AfD. None of these particular churches are notable enough to warrant their inclusion without citations to support them, and this list does not add any encyclopedic content to WP due to the absence of the verifiability of the existence of the churches that are listed on it. The policy clearly applies under those circumstances. The implication that simply because a church exists or has existed for any period of time and that that inherently makes it notable is false. Churches are not the same as towns and rarely warrant inclusion on WP, neither as their own article nor in a list such as this. Read Wales' quote for a direct response to the assumption behind all of these "keep" votes. • Freechild   'sup?  '' 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article topic in this instance (and all the other instances of the AfDs you have initiated for churches) are not the individual churches, but it is the list of churches, and this can be verified. This can clearly be done by referring to various ecclesiastical sources, amongst others in order to construct the list. It does not require that the individual churches themselves be notable. Thus, this latest claim also fails.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the policy does not "clearly apply". It is there to make sure that controversial material does not appear without references, not that uncontroversial material like the existence of a building is deleted without a reference. Adding a reference to a single guidebook to Florence would verify all the material on the list. Your argument simply does not hold water. Neither does the claim that churches "rarely warrant inclusion on WP". Historic churches in historic cities most certainly warrant inclusion. Most of the churches in Florence are architecturally significant and contain artworks by noted artists, which definitely justifies their inclusion -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does clearly apply. This list is clearly open to what Google Maps refers to as "1770 churches near Florence, Italy". There is no verbiage in this article that limits inclusion to historic churches, and surely you aren't implying that all 1770 churches near Florence are historical. I know its an old place, but we must agree here... There has to be a more defining criteria for inclusion on the list and each listing must be cited in order to prove the veracity of the claim that they are worth being noted. This list does neither, and as such merely demonstrates that it is merely listing making for the sake of list making. • Freechild   'sup?   12:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say near Florence, I said in Florence. And yes, most of the churches in Florence, including all those on the list, are of historical significance and worthy of their own articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * However, there is no way for a reader to know that other than your assertion Necrothesp. Because it doesn't pass the WP:OR test, once again this list proves to be WP:Listcruft: "Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources.". • Freechild   'sup?   13:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Issuing an AfD because something is not verified is an extreme first step. Also, "not verified" does not equate to "unverifiable". All you are saying here is that the article needs more doing on it, so why issue the AfD in the first place? Your allegation of Listcruft holds no water unless you unpack what you mean by this. I consider that the list is not indiscriminate or trivial (which is the definition of listcruft given in WP:LC), and this point has been already dealt with many times in the various AfDs you have proposed at roughly the same time for lists of churches.  DDStretch    (talk)  13:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Freechild, now you're claiming this article is original research, when it does not meet criteria for that either. Really, you do appear to be clutching at straws in your efforts to get this article deleted. I could reference the Blue Guide to Florence in the article and at a stroke every single church on the list would be referenced. As DDStretch says, "not verified" does not equate to "unverifiable". -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

KEEP This is a bizarre discussion. As a writer of articles on Italian art, I find such lists immensely helpful in organizing the material that needs to be added.

From what I recall, the arguments have been: 1) lack of original information - that is not true, some names are otherwise not present in Wikipedia 2) lack of references - that can easily be remediated quicker than it took to argue this case 3) lack of notability - this is bizarre. How should we measure notability? The church of San Marco or Santa Maria Novella contains artworks that are:

1) known or exposed to more people in the world than any specific facts about churches in Indiana or shopping malls in Malaysia 2) the cost of the artworks at auction in just a few churches in Florence would dwarf the value of many museum collections in the world. You can make the calculations by asking how much a Pontormo, for example sold at auction at Sotheby's and then estimate by how much Pontormo's painting at Santa Felicita would sell, and so on. That does not even place an aesthetic value on the works.

Most reasonable students of European artistic history would say that Florentine art was highly influential for subsequent European art. Most students would agree that churches in Florence contain major works of Florentine art. (do I need to reference these comments?) Having a list of churches is immensely helpful in sorting out who made works of art in FLorence, hence who was influential in subsequent European art. One place that also helps is that often when I read an article or entry about a work in a church: it might say the work is a Virgin with saints while another refers to a Glory of the Virgin and one entry might say the name of the church is the the Guastato or Vastato or Santa Maria di Guastato or Nunziata or Annunciata, etc. Having a list allows you to rapidly verify the name, and often find the name used in a linkable Wikipedia entry.

If the category of churches in Florence becomes the equivalent of this list, then this list no longer serves a purpose. While adding more information to this list would not harm it, it is best to keep it as a pruned list for utility. Baroque1700 (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2007 (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.