Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Museums of 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Museums of Florence

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An unnecessary essay-like article, very much a tour guide, likely WP:OR. The museums have their own articles, or individual articles can be created where they do not. See WP:NOTGUIDE. This has been moved to draft once already. Unilaterally moving it back would be move warring, so I have brought it here for discussion Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 07:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 07:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 07:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep but then, I am the author. First, let me say that the article is absolutely not WP:OR because every statement has been carefully sourced. The reason I started the article was that there was a nice version of it in Italian Wikipedia, and provided an overview of the museums and facts about them "as a whole", e.g. that there are many museums there, because the city was not attacked, even during WWII, and that the museums exist now because the Medici and the Savoy put their art there. Also the fact that the museums give rise to the Stendhal syndrome applies to them all, not each. And no one disputes that the article is notable. If Museums in Paris exists as a page, why not the museums in Florence? Hence the WP:NOTGUIDE does not apply here, given that it uses Paris as the key example. It says that the price of café au lait, etc. should not be mentioned and this article does not do that. Is the "Museums in Paris" page a tour guide, or an essay? No. This article is also not a tour guide or an essay. And note that there is also List of museums in Paris so Wikipedia uses both types of articles on the same subject. And User:Salimfadhley who placed the essay tag before, and moved to draft agreed that the tag was not proper and the article is not an essay. There was no reason for me not to move it back. Overall, "much ado about nothing" regarding a notable topic, and a fully referenced article. It is just surprising what one has to do to help build an article on a notable topic, which is fully referenced. I will not get a dime if this article exists, but I had assumed that the users would have been helped by the article. Ode+Joy (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * comment - That's not an accurate assessment of what I thought about the article at the time. I'd appreciate it if you don't misrepresent me in these discussions. I did ask you not to move the draft back into the mainspace yourself, and trust the AFC/review process. It seems that you ignored this suggestion. Honestly, I think you can do better than this. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, if I wanted to misrepresent you, I would not have pinged you! I pinged you, so you would know that I had said that. What I meant was this essay comment and then the tag removal comment. You did "suggest" not to move back, but that was a suggestion, and did not refer to a policy. As a confirmed user, I did not have to go through review. That is the whole point of being an autoconfirmed user. And given that the "essay tag" was your only reason for move to draft space, once that issue had been resolved, there was no reason not to move back. I breached no policy (I never do) and I was correct when I said that you agreed the tag could be removed. Ode+Joy (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: The current content does appear to be like a travel guide. I wonder if transforming it into a list (which has a separate set of criteria - WP:NLIST) would be more appropriate and could save the article. Urve (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was thinking much the same as Urve. Rewrite this content in the lead for a list of museums in Florence, which would easily pass NLIST. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 12:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Urve and Rhododendrites: Please let me ask: Why didn't you two vote delete? Because you knew the  topic is notable, and the content is well sourced. Yet, WP:NOTGUIDE does not apply because no one has given a specific example of that, or a comparison to Museums in Paris. In fact the nominator has not provided even one valid policy based reason  for deletion.  So let us look at the nominator's rationale:
 * Is the topic notable? Absolutely. No one disputes that given the many Google books results on the topic.
 * Is the nominator's "likely WP:OR" statement valid? Not at all. In fact he did not say that it is OR, but used "likely". Why say likely? Check if it is OR or not. And what is OR about Florence having museums? Everyone knows that there are many museums in Florence.
 * Does WP:NOTGUIDE apply? Certainly not, as discussed above regarding Museums in Paris. This was just thrown in the air without any specific reasoning. That is not a valid reason. Indeed Museums in Paris and List of museums in Paris serve different purposes.
 * Does WP:essay apply as Salimfadhley tagged the page? No, not at all, because that refers to comments about the encyclopedia, not the "contents" of the encyclopedia. The nominator should certainly read that page.
 * Does WP:NOTESSAY apply? No, not at all, because that refers to original tought and personal inventions. I did no invent Florence, or any of the museums, and the content is fully sourced. If it is not WP:OR then it is not a personal invention.
 * All that remains is the "unnecessary" characterization. I checked and WP:UNNECESSARY exists but is not a policy, but an essay. I suggest that the nominator should read the pages on WP:essay, WP:NOTESSAY  and WP:UNNECESSARY before using those terms again.
 * The only remaining reason is WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of the nominator, which again is not a valid policy based reason.


 * No valid policy based reason has been given why the article should not be there. Personally, I would prefer deletion to transformation into a list, as had suggested on the talk page when I started the article. If the article exist or not will make no big difference to my life, so if it is not to be so be it. I started it to so some good, but if it is not good enough, I will do my best not to make the mistake of starting new articles any more. I will put up Draft:Limoges_Fine_Arts_Museum which I am doing now, and be done with that. This whole unbelievable mess started because I did not know about the "underconstruction flag" and started a small article as is done on the Italian and French Wikipedias, so I could work on it gradually. I now know about the draft space, but the treatment I received at "article review" consisted of the quotation of one incorrect policy after another, in the same style as this nomination. So why am I typing here? Because I am insulted by the suggestion that I have somehow breached policy, or used WP:Or etc. I have breached no policy, have used no WP:OR and have not built an article on a topic that is not notable. That should be clear. That is all I ask. Ode+Joy (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Move to draftspace, it is clear that this editor was unaware of the article creation process on English Wikipedia. Here on English Wikipedia, if an article is in the process of being created, then Draft space is the best place for it as it's sort of a safe space for new articles while they're still being made (doesn't mean they stay there until they're ready for mainspace though). I think it should be moved to a draft and made into a list and worked on from there. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User has agreed to move article back to draft space to work on it after being presented with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. They said that they won't make it into a list however so I offered to assist them in cleaning up the article. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As stated in User_talk:Blaze_The_Wolf I want to move back to draft so I don't have to look at this highly intelligent discussion any more, not because I think the article has WP:OR, which it does not, or that I have breached any policy. So is there a reason I should not just move it now? Even better would be to REDIRECT the page to Florence and be done with it. So I am requesting a rapid redirect to that. By the way, how many sources does Florence have at the moment? Guess quickly. It has zero sources! Is that not interesting in view of the comment that this page is likely WP:OR. Anyway, as soon as a redirect can take place, I will drink some bubbly and be done with this genius discussion. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is notable, independent, reliable sources exist. It is possible to have an encyclopedic article on the topic, in parallel with a list article on the museums of Florence. Museums in Florence can be an encyclopedic article on the historical, political an economical context in which those museums exist. Vexations (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nomination: IMHO tens of thousands of WP articles are unnecessary, but I wouldn't class this among them. It doesn't read to me like a tour guide, other than in its favorable references to the places it covers; but the favorableness is referenced, unsurprising in that Florence is, I think, universally acknowledged to have a remarkable set of remarkable museums, especially given its population or area. Tour guide? Well, there are tour guides and tour guides: if the text of this article resembled that of some "bucket list" tripe, there'd be cause for concern; but if it has a degree of resemblance to that of a Guide Bleu, Blue Guide, a (red-bound) Baedeker or a Nagel's Encyclopedia-Guide, this is no bad thing, as such books were compiled to inform and enlighten. I don't see "OR". Yes, the article needs improvement, but then so do most WP articles. Unlike very many, this is about a subject that merits the effort.-- Hoary (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Amazing, two Wikipedia editor with a sense of reason. Who would have guessed? But as I stated on Teahouse, the behavior of JBChrch, Salimfadhley and Timtrent made me decide to quit editing because I do not want to watch this page for 7 more days and read dumb comments. The page review process seems set to push away new users. Well, it worked. My next step: open the bubbly and celebrate my departure to a world where I can have intelligent conversations. Ode+Joy (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You realize, Ode+Joy, that you're entirely free to ignore this particular page and instead tinker with the Florence article? That attractive option aside, thank you for the kind remarks about Vexations and myself. I can't speak for Vexations, but if you believe that I am sensible or reasonable you may be mistaken. On my user page, you'll see an interesting assortment of perceptive views on my sense and reason, or rather the lack thereof. Peruse it as you sip your bubbly, and happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Allegations of misbehavior should be posted at WP:ANI and not on discussion pages. I have already warned you that you need to conform to WP:CIV, so if you continue with your accusations against me or other editors I will report you myself. JBchrch   talk  12:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Topic is notable and article can be improved upon by others with time. Slywriter (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is valuable, sourced, notable content which should be kept.  Like others, I don't see a clear argument for deletion, but I think the nom is reacting to the focus of the article "Museums of Florence" as being potentially vague and subjective.  This article is neither of those things.  It would be helpful if the article had a verifiable statement of scope, "these are the 12 most-visited museums" or "among the top Florentine museums chosen by Rough Guide" or something like that, to show that this isn't just the editor's choices, and to allow a basis for others to contribute too.  --Lockley (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2021 (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.