Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Museums of Florence

Museums of Florence

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Museums of Florence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

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. — 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. You also know that WP:NOTGUIDE does not apply. 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 whatis 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.
• 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 page. Ode+Joy (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)