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. Sandstein 07:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC) reply

List of celebrated domes

List of celebrated domes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

List with subjective inclusion criteria Brinerat ( talk) 03:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Brinerat ( talk) 03:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is a subjective list. What makes a dome "celebrated"? Even the article doesn't say anything about why these particular domes are listed. There probably are ways to make lists of domes that are particularly significant besides List of largest domes that would meet our list criteria, but this is not one of those ways. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 04:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It seems it was originally pulled from this version [1] of domes back in 2008, but no source was included in the original either. Within Domes, it was originally added as "Famous Domes" by user:Wetman in 2004 [2], but no source existed then either, and the edit did not include a reason. I can only assume that this is WP:OR, and thus has no place here. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 06:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. What on earth is a 'celebrated dome'? Ajf773 ( talk) 09:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not enough context to identify the subject. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 10:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unadulterated, distilled 100% original research. —— Serial 13:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Completely unsourced list. Without any sources establishing what a "celebrated dome" is or why these entries meet that criteria, this is complete WP:OR and should be removed accordingly. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I believe that the obvious issue has been raised by others here already, which is of course that "celebrated" is not given an objective definition here, as opposed to, say, List of largest domes or List of tallest domes. / Tpdwkouaa ( talk) 17:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep but change "celebrated" to "notable," a "notable dome" being one that is found on a building that has a wikipedia article about it. I find the list quite fun. Carptrash ( talk) 20:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• We try to avoid articles with notable in the title. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Category:Domes exist. I agree with a name change. Every dome notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article should be listed. A table format would be better as it could have a column for information such as Treasury of Atreus "it was the tallest and widest dome in the world for over a thousand years" as its article states. Name, year created, measurements, information about it. Dream Focus 21:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 01:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - the term "celebrated", if backed up by reliable sourcing for each and every entry, would be valid. But it isn't. Notable is not much better. That being said, a page move to List of notable buildings with domes, I think, might address the concerns of the current delete !votes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC) reply

User:onel5969: just reading your suggestion now, and it is a good one. It would aid navigation and research. Tonejunkie ( talk) 01:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete I believe WP:LISTCRITERIA is most relevant. It states "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.". As it stand this is very ambiguous, subjective, and not supported by reliable sources. As for the idea of changing the criteria to "notable" then we are simply duplicating a category. I think that the topic itself does not meet our criteria and as such changes to the article are unlikely to resolve this. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes and it goes on to say "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item." Which is the case here. The real problem is the florid title "celebrated"; and lack of sources to establish notability - but they are all blue link with sources; and the article can be renamed. -- Green C 15:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete it appears the page only exists because I threw it off Dome; I regarded it as a meaningless list all those years ago. That view has not changed Changing to Keep and change to list of notable domes. It can do no harm and may be useful. God knows where snd to whom, but who knows? Giano (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep but change "celebrated" to "notable, as User:Carptrash has suggested. These are certainly notable domes and the list aides in navigation. I have added some information to two of the domes. Tonejunkie ( talk) 21:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• We try to avoid articles with notable in the title. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep List criteria can be subjective per WP:LISTCRITERIA. Editorial choices what to include or exclude from Wikipedia is subjective. We are making subjective decisions all the time. The real problem is the florid title "celebrated"; and lack of sources to establish notability - but they are all blue link with sources available; and the article can be renamed. -- Green C 15:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete To avoid the argument that there are still many subjective decisions, here a slightly different formulation: First define what should be "celebrated" or "notable" at all before you create such a list - Killarnee ( C• T• U) 16:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Two problems: Wikipedia doesn't require approval before creating something, only after. Notability is defined, many lists exist based on notability. The suggested title is List of notable buildings with domes. -- Green C 16:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC) reply

I mean the list. There is a list, but I do not see any value as long as there are no additional information in the list, such as why exactly this dome is in the list. The "Information" column in the list is also very lean xD - Killarnee ( C• T• U) 16:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete the main issue is this list is just too subjective and hard to quantify. It might be better served to re-make a page similar to this with a different less subjective focus. While having a list of domes could be useful and amusing, this is not it Tautomers ( talk) 21:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC) reply

  Any dome that has its own Wikipedia article is what's on the list, nothing more. Dream Focus 13:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete I agree that this is to subjective and hard to quantify as a topic. Especially when it comes to if a dome or the building it's attached to is what's notable. For instance, Saint Basil's Cathedral is in the list, but the cathedral itself is what's notable about it. Not the dome. The same goes for St Paul's Cathedral Etc. Etc. Which I'm not really sure how to reconcile. Sure, I guess something like List of notable buildings with domes could be created instead so the inclusion criteria is not as arbitrary. but I don't think that would work as a list either. Since like Dome says "The precise definition of a dome has been a matter of controversy and there are a wide variety of forms and specialized terms to describe them." You can't really have a list of something if there's no clear definition of what that something is. List of buildings with hollow upper halves of a sphere maybe? Muh. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 23:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Change to List of notable domes. This is a helpful and interesting list. The list could be expanded or slimmed depending on the definition used. There are clearly notable domes. Yes, dome is a defined term that can be expansive. This can be explained in a few sentences at the top of the list. Thriley ( talk) 14:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC) reply

If keeping the article hinges on there being a clear definition of the word "dome" (which it seems to) then the definition should be came up with before the AfD is closed. Otherwise, it's pretty likely no one is going to do it later and the article will still go against the guidelines for lists. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 18:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• We try to avoid articles with notable in the title. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete As has been stated, there is no definition on what makes a dome celebrated or notable, and I think any such definition is bound to be subjective. This makes it impossible for the article to be unambiguous, objective, or reliably sourced per WP:LISTCRITERIA. — FORMALDUDE ^{( talk)} 00:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  It list domes that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, making this a valid navigation list. Dream Focus 07:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC) reply

No it lists notable buildings that also happen to have domes. Most of them aren't notable at all for having domes though. Really, youu could just as easily make similar arguements for something like List of notable public restrooms or something along those lines. "Well, the buildings containing the restrooms are notable..And that's what the article contains..Buildings with restrooms ..So..Shrug?" At least in that case we could define what a restroom is though. Adamant1 ( talk) 07:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - since changing the title doesn't seem to be a way to go, the current article does not meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No sources to back up subjective claims. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:14, 7 July 2021 (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.