Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Ontario Museum Iconic Objects

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Ontario Museum Iconic Objects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is just what's in a booklet put out by the museum. A passing mention in the Toronto Star is about all the independent notice it's gotten,[1] if we're being generous (as "iconic objects", not "Iconic Objects"). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is really just a list and, as such, does not need the same level of referencing that the linked articles require. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability applies to lists, and this is likely a copyvio, since the list is basically a copy of a ROM publication. Pburka (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Royal Ontario Museum which should have a list of its notable objects. After all that is what a museum is most notable for. BTW "Iconic" is just an opinion, and IMO somewhat misused here.Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename List of notable artifacts owned by the Royal Ontario Museum and keep - under that title, the list will have clearly defined and neutral inclusion criteria. A merge would not be a good idea, as the main ROM article is already very loong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Txcrossbow: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lists need to be notable, and this one is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Secondarywaltz. This a list that supports the information given at Royal Ontario Museum. It doesn't need the same level of referencing of an article.--Solvete (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Royal Ontario Museum. I agree with Kitfoxxe's position - this list should reside in the Museum's article, and the word "Iconic" should be replaced with "notable" or something like that. PKT(alk) 17:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, it's a different list. This list is a list of items which a ROM publication has declared to be "iconic." I'd support keeping a list of notable artifacts, but republishing their own list is a copyright violation. Pburka (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; this is essentially just a copyright violation of a work self-published by the institution, containing its own subjective assessments of which items in its own collection qualify as "iconic", without even the slightest attempt at reliably sourcing even one of the items or its iconicity. This is not the kind of thing we should be retaining, and contrary to some assertions above lists do still require some sourcing. People regularly try to add inappropriate entries to lists, such as adding a person to a list of people from a place that person isn't from, or adding a band to a list of bands in a genre that has nothing to do with that band's music (e.g. The Clash on List of hip hop groups), or adding a heterosexual person to our lists of LGBT people as a form of attack editing, or adding a nonexistent fantasy sports team to a list of sports teams, and on and so forth. So lists do require sourcing to demonstrate that the entries in the list actually belong there. No objection to listing some of the items in the ROM's main article, or a more general and not primary sourced "list of notable artifacts", if there are independent sources available to verify that the ROM's holding of that object is considered noteworthy by anybody not directly employed by the ROM itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 2 May 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.