573:, it is clear that this editor was unaware of the article creation process on English Knowledge (XXG). Here on English Knowledge (XXG), 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. ―
726:, 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.
366:- 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. --
685:
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
554:, 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.
344:
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
660:
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
335:
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
835:
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
318:
because every statement has been carefully sourced. The reason I started the article was that there was a nice version of it in
Italian Knowledge (XXG), 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
684:
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
549:
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
540:
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
484:
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
638:
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.
392:. 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
704:, 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.--
757:
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! --
205:
831:. 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
514:
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
752:
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
625:
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
396:
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.
263:
507:
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.
345:
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.
166:
199:
522:
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.
285:
319:
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
98:
113:
536:
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
139:
134:
143:
420:: 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 -
126:
244:. This has been moved to draft once already. Unilaterally moving it back would be move warring, so I have brought it here for discussion
61:
93:
86:
17:
462:: 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,
220:
187:
107:
103:
496:. This was just thrown in the air without any specific reasoning. That is not a valid reason. Indeed Museums in Paris and
590:
862:
40:
181:
542:
845:
823:
800:
767:
735:
713:
670:
648:
604:
593:. They said that they won't make it into a list however so I offered to assist them in cleaning up the article. ―
584:
563:
454:
433:
406:
375:
354:
299:
277:
255:
68:
442:
177:
618:
599:
579:
537:
497:
337:
130:
65:
526:
519:
227:
371:
57:
858:
481:
Is the topic notable? Absolutely. No one disputes that given the many Google books results on the topic.
36:
723:
722:
Amazing, two
Knowledge (XXG) editor with a sense of reason. Who would have guessed? But as I stated on
699:
511:
489:
463:
332:
241:
622:
240:. The museums have their own articles, or individual articles can be created where they do not. See
819:
666:
594:
574:
447:
213:
122:
74:
787:, so if you continue with your accusations against me or other editors I will report you myself.
731:
644:
559:
402:
350:
294:
272:
250:
193:
504:
421:
841:
795:
367:
341:
320:
82:
53:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
857:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
589:
User has agreed to move article back to draft space to work on it after being presented with
324:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
493:
467:
328:
784:
780:
763:
709:
315:
237:
815:
662:
466:
does not apply because no one has given a specific example of that, or a comparison to
429:
380:
No, if I wanted to misrepresent you, I would not have pinged you! I pinged you, so you
774:
745:
727:
640:
555:
398:
346:
289:
267:
245:
837:
788:
783:
and not on discussion pages. I have already warned you that you need to conform to
160:
690:
441:- I was thinking much the same as Urve. Rewrite this content in the lead for a
759:
705:
686:
529:
on the part of the nominator, which again is not a valid policy based reason.
425:
694:
635:
627:
836:
editor's choices, and to allow a basis for others to contribute too. --
682:
An unnecessary essay-like article, very much a tour guide, likely WP:OR.
340:
so Knowledge (XXG) uses both types of articles on the same subject. And
814:
Topic is notable and article can be improved upon by others with time.
518:
All that remains is the "unnecessary" characterization. I checked and
323:
applies to them all, not each. And no one disputes that the article is
236:
An unnecessary essay-like article, very much a tour guide, likely
310:
but then, I am the author. First, let me say that the article is
853:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
621:
I want to move back to draft so I don't have to look at this
331:
exists as a page, why not the museums in Florence? Hence the
474:
for deletion. So let us look at the nominator's rationale:
264:
list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions
545:
which I am doing now, and be done with that. This whole
424:) would be more appropriate and could save the article.
389:
385:
156:
152:
148:
212:
636:
Florence#Monuments,_museums_and_religious_buildings
628:
Florence#Monuments,_museums_and_religious_buildings
492:apply? Certainly not, as discussed above regarding
226:
724:Knowledge (XXG):Teahouse#A_comment,_not_a_question
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
865:). No further edits should be made to this page.
284:Note: This discussion has been included in the
262:Note: This discussion has been included in the
779:Allegations of misbehavior should be posted at
8:
114:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
634:to that. By the way, how many sources does
630:and be done with it. So I am requesting a
286:list of Italy-related deletion discussions
283:
261:
470:. In fact the nominator has not provided
601:
581:
384:that I had said that. What I meant was
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
619:User_talk:Blaze_The_Wolf#Page_review
445:, which would easily pass NLIST. —
552:one incorrect policy after another
472:even one valid policy based reason
24:
99:Introduction to deletion process
748:, that you're entirely free to
543:Draft:Limoges_Fine_Arts_Museum
538:had suggested on the talk page
1:
623:highly intelligent discussion
525:The only remaining reason is
846:18:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
824:03:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
801:12:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
768:03:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
736:02:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
714:22:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
671:21:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
649:21:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
605:20:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
585:18:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
564:15:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
455:12:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
434:11:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
407:08:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
376:08:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
355:08:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
300:07:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
278:07:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
256:07:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
69:13:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
443:list of museums in Florence
89:(AfD)? Read these primers!
882:
500:serve different purposes.
855:Please do not modify it.
498:List of museums in Paris
338:List of museums in Paris
32:Please do not modify it.
460:Urve and Rhododendrites
390:the tag removal comment
702:'s Encyclopedia-Guide
87:Articles for deletion
591:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
123:Museums of Florence
75:Museums of Florence
571:Move to draftspace
386:this essay comment
547:unbelievable mess
342:User:Salimfadhley
321:Stendhal syndrome
302:
280:
104:Guide to deletion
94:How to contribute
873:
798:
793:
778:
693:, a (red-bound)
683:
494:Museums in Paris
468:Museums in Paris
452:
450:
394:your only reason
329:Museums in Paris
297:
292:
275:
270:
253:
248:
231:
230:
216:
164:
146:
84:
34:
881:
880:
876:
875:
874:
872:
871:
870:
869:
863:deletion review
796:
789:
772:
681:
661:museums exist.
603:
602:Blaze Wolf#6545
583:
582:Blaze Wolf#6545
448:
446:
295:
290:
273:
268:
251:
246:
173:
137:
121:
118:
81:
78:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
879:
877:
868:
867:
849:
848:
826:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
770:
739:
738:
717:
716:
680:. Nomination:
674:
673:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
632:rapid redirect
610:
609:
608:
607:
596:Blaze The Wolf
576:Blaze The Wolf
567:
566:
533:
532:
531:
530:
527:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
523:
520:WP:UNNECESSARY
516:
508:
501:
486:
482:
476:
475:
457:
449:Rhododendrites
436:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
358:
357:
336:there is also
304:
303:
281:
234:
233:
170:
117:
116:
111:
101:
96:
79:
77:
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
878:
866:
864:
860:
856:
851:
850:
847:
843:
839:
834:
830:
827:
825:
821:
817:
813:
810:
809:
802:
799:
794:
792:
786:
782:
776:
771:
769:
765:
761:
756:
751:
747:
744:You realize,
743:
742:
741:
740:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
720:
719:
718:
715:
711:
707:
703:
701:
696:
692:
688:
679:
676:
675:
672:
668:
664:
659:
656:
650:
646:
642:
637:
633:
629:
624:
620:
617:As stated in
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
606:
600:
598:
597:
592:
588:
587:
586:
580:
578:
577:
572:
569:
568:
565:
561:
557:
553:
548:
544:
539:
535:
534:
528:
524:
521:
517:
513:
509:
506:
502:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
480:
479:
478:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
458:
456:
451:
444:
440:
437:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
416:
415:
408:
404:
400:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
378:
377:
373:
369:
365:
362:
361:
360:
359:
356:
352:
348:
343:
339:
334:
330:
326:
322:
317:
313:
309:
306:
305:
301:
298:
293:
287:
282:
279:
276:
271:
265:
260:
259:
258:
257:
254:
249:
243:
239:
229:
225:
222:
219:
215:
211:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
179:
176:
175:Find sources:
171:
168:
162:
158:
154:
150:
145:
141:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
119:
115:
112:
109:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
91:
90:
88:
83:
76:
73:
71:
70:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
854:
852:
832:
828:
811:
790:
754:
749:
698:
677:
657:
631:
595:
575:
570:
551:
546:
471:
459:
438:
417:
393:
381:
368:Salimfadhley
363:
311:
307:
235:
223:
217:
209:
202:
196:
190:
184:
174:
80:
54:filelakeshoe
49:
47:
31:
28:
833:potentially
512:WP:NOTESSAY
490:WP:NOTGUIDE
464:WP:NOTGUIDE
333:WP:NOTGUIDE
242:WP:NOTGUIDE
200:free images
691:Blue Guide
687:Guide Bleu
515:invention.
382:would know
312:absolutely
859:talk page
816:Slywriter
663:Vexations
485:Florence.
388:and then
37:talk page
861:or in a
695:Baedeker
505:WP:essay
422:WP:NLIST
167:View log
108:glossary
39:or in a
838:Lockley
791:JBchrch
775:Ode+Joy
746:Ode+Joy
728:Ode+Joy
641:Ode+Joy
556:Ode+Joy
439:Comment
418:Comment
399:Ode+Joy
364:comment
347:Ode+Joy
325:notable
206:WP refs
194:scholar
140:protect
135:history
85:New to
785:WP:CIV
781:WP:ANI
750:ignore
296:Faddle
291:Fiddle
274:Faddle
269:Fiddle
252:Faddle
247:Fiddle
178:Google
144:delete
760:Hoary
706:Hoary
700:Nagel
697:or a
510:Does
503:Does
488:Does
327:. If
316:WP:OR
238:WP:OR
221:JSTOR
182:books
161:views
153:watch
149:links
16:<
842:talk
829:Keep
820:talk
812:Keep
797:talk
764:talk
732:talk
710:talk
678:Keep
667:talk
658:Keep
645:talk
560:talk
430:talk
426:Urve
403:talk
372:talk
351:talk
314:not
308:Keep
214:FENS
188:news
157:logs
131:talk
127:edit
52:. –
50:keep
453:\\
228:TWL
165:– (
844:)
822:)
766:)
734:)
712:)
689:,
669:)
647:)
562:)
432:)
405:)
374:)
353:)
288:.
266:.
208:)
159:|
155:|
151:|
147:|
142:|
138:|
133:|
129:|
66:🐱
64:)
60:/
840:(
818:(
777::
773:@
762:(
755:I
730:(
708:(
665:(
643:(
558:(
428:(
401:(
370:(
349:(
232:)
224:·
218:·
210:·
203:·
197:·
191:·
185:·
180:(
172:(
169:)
163:)
125:(
110:)
106:(
62:c
58:t
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.