Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of churches in Venice

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. Core desat 04:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of churches in Venice[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. • Freechild'sup? 18:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Note also that Venice is full of churches that merit articles. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a list can be made does not mean it should be. A list of churches in Manchester is not inherently any more valuable than a list of pizza parlors in Manchester, per Malinaccier. • Freechild'sup? 19:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indexing and cross-indexing remain one of the weaknesses of the project. Lists help remedy this. And yes, a list of churches in Venice is indeed more valuable than a list of pizza parlors; few pizza parlors have any historic, artistic, or devotional significance, in other words they are not notable, but churches definitely have that potential. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, pizza parlors may have a great deal of value to foodies. This is not an AfD against churches, merely insignificant lists of churches. • Freechild'sup? 19:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an insignificant list of churches, but a list of significant churches. There is a very big difference. -- Necrothesp 09:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 20:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments of all the previous respondents who have indicated "Keep" are most telling, whilst the arguments of Freechild 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. Furthermore, it is not clear whether Freechild is distinguishing enough between insignificant lists of churches, lists of insignificant churches, insignificant lists of insignificant churches, or list of churches, from the later comments made by Freechild. DDStretch (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Given that WP is not the Yellow Pages, this article has little or no value not already granted by the Category:Churches in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Let's let the taxonomy work, and be done with lists that add no notable information. • Freechild'sup? 23:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of an article does not guarantee lack of notability, and yet this is what is required implicitly to be the case in order to make this point valid. Since it cannot be maintained, the point made by Freechild fails. DDStretch (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This list also replicates Category:Churches in Venice. • Freechild'sup? 01:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two things are clearly not identical: the category includes only churches for which there are articles already in existence, whilst the "List of churches in Venice" includes many more, and perhaps all of them–including the ones without articles at the moment. So the claim of "replication" misrepresents the situation. If redundancy were the only issue to determine the matter, it would have to be the category that should be deleted. But it isn't (the only issue to determine...), so it shouldn't be (deleted). DDStretch (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Hmains 03:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't believe Freechild's argument that a list of pizza parlours is just as relevant as a list of churches in one of the most historic cities in the world. Churches have centuries of history behind them; pizza parlours do not. Most churches in Venice are worthy of their own articles in any case and a list is a useful way to determine which need articles creating for them. -- Necrothesp 11:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 areb 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) 12:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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#DIR policy. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another note. In addition to clearly violating WP:NOT#DIRhis, 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? 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a world of difference between lists of shopping malls and lists of churches in a smallish modern city, very few if any of which are deserving of their own articles, and lists of churches in Venice, which is full of historic churches deserving of their own articles (as you can see from the number which are already bluelinked). You can't just take comments made about one list and apply them to another list just because they're both lists - that is illogical. The article is not in clear violation of WP:NOT#DIRhis in any way. You may not like lists, but no Wikipedia policy or guideline says they shouldn't be created - see Wikipedia:Lists and particularly read the first point in the "in a nutshell" section for a contradiction of one of your previous arguments. -- Necrothesp 09:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its not that I do not like lists; rather, I think they have a potential that they should live up to. This AfD is intended to prompt somebody to do something about the sorry condition of this list, rather than to get into a war of words over the value of lists, or the value of churches. If the buildings are all historical, as Sjakkalle proposes below, then insert their date of construction into the article. Just make the article better, rather than arguing this AfD. Editors should be editing - not arguing. • Freechild'sup? 15:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you have nominated a list to get it improved then you shouldn't have nominated it at all. That isn't the purpose of AfDs. In any case, the list isn't in a "sorry condition". It's a list, doing what lists do. -- Necrothesp 16:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agreed. I presume this goes for the others in the swathe of AfDs for lists of churches you made. DDStretch (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        This does not go for the others, as each is its own case. In this article, if it is not improved it should be deleted. • Freechild'sup? 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you would be better explaining yourself further here. What is special about this list which makes your now-declared intention here that the AfD was a prompt for improvement of the article, but which means that the other articles are not in such a privileged state according to your intention in posting their AfDs? After all, you have put forward almost identical arguments in favour of deleting each of them, and yet now, in this case, you say it falls into a completely different case according to your opinion. I don't think any such distinction can be made: if this list's AfD should be taken to be a call to improve it, then so should the others, and in each case, therefore, that is what should be allowed to happen, rather than deleting them. In which case, I you should consider withdrawing your support for the deletion of this article immediately, and seriously consider doing the same for the others. DDStretch (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As it stands, this article should be deleted. If you are interested in discussing other articles nominated for deletion, please discuss them on their relevant talk pages. • Freechild'sup? 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the churches of Venice are historic buildings with a history so great that they are notable. List serves a navigational purpose. For most cities, a list of churches runs afoul of NOTDIRECTORY, but Venice is a clear exception since articles on the individual churches can be justified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep in accordance with WP:CLS and Wikipedia:Lists. --Paularblaster 02:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? 17:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 18:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 21:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
    - With all due respect, initiating an AfD is not the most best or most appropriate way to ask for the verification of something that you wish to challenge. You did not initiate this AfD on the grounds on non-verifiability anyway, but on the basis that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The basis on which you raised this AfD has been refuted, your new-found concern for sources can be easily dealt with, and your argument that because the elements of a list are not notable then the list itself cannot be notable is simply a logical fallacy. And as was said earlier, it is tiresome to have to keep repeating the same points in each one of your List of Churches in ... AfDs. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - 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 Venice 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 Venice are architecturally significant and contain artworks by noted artists, which definitely justifies their inclusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2007 (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.