Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The City Reliquary

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. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The City Reliquary[edit]

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

Promotional and borderline notability Perhaps the two NYT sources are enough for notability, but the other references are local brooklyn or NYC papers giving extensive PR-related coverage of local events). The content is so detailed as to be promotional--a detailed list of objects in a museum is not done at WP even for the most famous museums. There's obvious COI, and all attempts at improvement have been reverted. That might justify G13, as a promotional article not fixable by normal editing, but I prefer to bring it here.

Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism --or even clear persistent promotionalism on a notable subject -- is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The City Reliquary is dedicated to chronicling the history of NYC. Why does this make it not notable? The Museum of the City of New York has its own article and this seems not to be a problem. Many of the Reliquary's visitors are international tourists from European countries, so the appeal of the museum goes beyond NYC or Brooklyn. Numerous international editions of the Lonely Planet travel guide, and other international guide books, describe it as a must-see museum in New York.
All improvements imposed by Wikipedia editors remain. Not sure where this objection is coming from.
The article for the Metropolitan Museum of Art contains a section where major objects from the collection appear with links that ultimately lead to the MMA site. Is this not promotional? Seeing as how this is acceptable for the Met, it does not seem out of line that The City Reliquary would also highlight key objects. The same thing occurs in the article for The Museum of Modern Art. This seemed to be the standard for museum Wiki articles and was the guideline followed when composing The City Reliquary article.
It would be helpful to receive feedback as to how the article for The City Reliquary could improve. At the moment, some of the issues cited as grounds for deletion seem to single out the museum unfairly. Scelentano81 (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)— Scelentano81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Notability is minimal. Fails WP:GEO. It's just a small storefront. See it here in Google StreetView. [1]. John Nagle (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The space is not just a storefront. It comprises three rooms featuring objects in addition to a sizable outdoor area that also features installations. And in any case, the physical size of the space has no bearing on the artistic or historic merits of its contents. Conde Nast has listed The City Reliquary as one of the best small museums in NYC. Scelentano81 (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagle: WP:GEO links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. As such, this does not provide a valid rationale for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant WP:GEOFEAT, which applies to buildings. WP:ORG is also relevant. John Nagle (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and repair. I think this small institution's notability as a Brooklyn attraction is reasonably well-established. Among the more persuasive sources, we have not only the Times articles, but also a 2006 NPR Weekend Edition feature [2][3], and there's a helpfully succinct profile of the place in New York [4]. I acknowledge and respect the concerns about promotion raised by the nomination. There is some puffery here, but I don't perceive such a severe case of commercial promotion, or a pattern of resistance to improvement, as to warrant banning this from the encyclopedia. I think there should be a difference between our approach to crass corporate advertising, on the one hand, and, on the other, how we handle articles about legitimate non-profit cultural institutions. Many of our articles about legitimate museums tend to overstate the praises of their subjects, but rather than eliminate these, I would prefer to try to clean them up. Here, for example, we could sharply winnow down the "special events" section, and examine the rest with an eye toward avoiding any sideshow-barker tone in the prose. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Arxiloxos that this museum seems notable: along with the local sources, NPR covered the institution on a national broadcast. I have trimmed some of the promotional content, but have left removing the list of special events up to a broader consensus. Altamel (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2015 (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.