Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incense burner (ROM)

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. postdlf (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incense burner (ROM)

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

This article was dePRODDED as requiring discussion, as it originated via Wikipedia:GLAM/ROM. The original rationale, which I find persuasive, was:
"A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals [...] Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability."
Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is about a generic non-notable incense burner in the collection of the Royal Ontario Museum. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, I should add that GLAM/ROM project coordinator User:MJMcGowan seemed to have no objection to the PROD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I deprodded it, to bring this to public discussion. There are two related problems: the immediate one, is meeting the technical WP requirements for notability , which requires substantial coverage of the object by independent sources. In this connection, "independent" is usually defined as meaning sources by sources not connected with the museum. The general one, is what objects to pick for WP articles. My own feeling is that they should either be unique , or iconic. By unique I do not mean the small differences that distinguish all non-mass produced objects. I do not really think this particular incense burner is iconic for the type of objects, unless there is information I have not noticed --perhaps a case can be made that the iconography is unusual. (a practical test might be what incense burners of the period are used as illustrations on standard books).

But Shawn, outside of the Googles, what current professional sources did you examine to verify that there were no substantial independent references? 19:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)

Outside of the provided Google search links, none. Furthermore, I felt as you did that there was nothing in the article to suggest that it was "iconic" or in any way notable. Thirdly, a lack of WP:COMPETENCE as I saw it on the part of the article creator (see User talk page and my discussions with MJMcGowan at the GLAM/ROM talk page) did not leave me with the impression that the article creator had a particularly good grasp of WP:N. Once I saw the prod from Secondarywaltz, I felt confident that deletion was the right way to go, and still do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books doesn't give me access to the relevant page in the independent source that is cited in the article. Has anyone commenting here read it, and, if so, how much coverage does it contain? I must add that I wish people would write proper rationales when they use the WP:PROD procedure - this {{prod-nn}} template, in particular the word "consequently", does not describe a valid reason for deletion without further reasoning, especially when an article title contains a disambiguator. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately. This is obviously a good-faith effort at creating an article by a new editor who was inspired by the artefact they wrote about. Unfortunately, this one slipped through the cracks of the Wikipedia:GLAM/ROM project and a good bit of work has done on what looks like a non-notable topic. There is one cited secondary ref that I could not personally verify and one reliable but primary reference to the associated ROM collection (treating the web and bulletin refs as one source). I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but this topic seems to fail notability guidelines, per WP:GNG, of needing multiple in-depth reliable sources upon which to base an article. With regard to others' comments, I don't think it is our place at AfD to judge how iconic an artefact may be--that is going to be a subjective call. Instead, I think we need to concentrate on importance as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Sorry, --Mark viking (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2013 (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.