Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Socialist Realism

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 of the debate was delete. (per WP:NOT although this could be easily replaced with a category) -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery of Socialist Realism

WP:NOT a image gallery. Transwiki to commons and Delete --JAranda | watz sup 00:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. so blatant about violating WP:NOT, too... Menyoung Lee 02:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: An illustration or two in Soviet Realism or Soviet Socialist Realism is ok, but a gallery is not appropriate even if it were an ideal gallery. This is not. Geogre 03:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Geogre. encephalon 08:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Image galleries are not articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• comment/question- is it possible to have galleries within the commons? Sure there are categories but other types of curation/organization could be very interesting. Could we merge this to a "Gallery of Socialist Realism" there? Davidrowe 10:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and change misguided policy. CalJW 12:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The commons is made precisely for galleries and image collections and they'd be easily useable here if put in an article. Why are you calling the policy misguided? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki images and list them at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social Realism on the commons provided they are free and fully sourced. The commons has regular pages as well as categories, see for example [[1]]. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete per nom. Dottore So 12:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Agreed this is not an image gallery. Gatecrasher 19:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I also feel that this policy is wrong. I have proposed changing it. For my reasoning see this proposal. Dsmdgold 05:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Commons and delete. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. --Carnildo 07:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Commons and link from socialist realism or place this gallery at the bottom of socialist realism, but that seems to lack much support other than me. In any case, make sure we don't just lose this, it's excellent. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Commons, as suggested above (assuming the images are properly sourced and free). Wikipedia is not an image gallery, and I oppose the proposed policy change that would turn it into one. (By the way, I didn't manage to actually see any of the images, because the derned image server is so flippin' slow these days... yet another reason against turning the site into an image gallery) *Dan T.* 16:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I assume you have read my proposal at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal to modify WP:NOT an image gallery. If so, please comment there as to why you oppose the proposed change. BTW, in my opinion, the current slowness of the image servers is an argument for allowing image galleries. Since one must see many examples of an art movement in order to understand it, if image galleries are not allowed, then the images would need to be included in the main article, making that article slow to load. However, one would not know from a link wether or not an article is image intensive. (To demonstrate this point, which of these articles includes a large gallery: Codex Aureus of Lorsch or Codex Aureus of St. Emmeram?) However when you click on an article with the word "Gallery" in the title, you know what you are getting into. Dsmdgold 18:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and transwiki the copyright acceptable images as per nom.--nixie 02:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Encyclopediac case for galleries, and the inadequacies of transwikying in cases such as this has been very well argued on WP talk:NOT. Allowing image galleries that provide valuable support to a particular encyclopediac article is not subverting the status of WP as a whole. --- Charles Stewart 21:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Pictures help the Wikipedia; the gallery categorizes a potentially large set of images; in other words we need more categorization like this list. --Ancheta Wis 01:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep These belong on Wikipedia, not the Commons. Forcing them inside the article itself is not a good solution either. Turnstep 03:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Following the discussion and quick poll at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal to modify WP:NOT an image gallery, the WP:NOT policy has been changed, and now explicitly includes content such as this page. Participants in this discussion who have voted Delete should indicate whether they still stand by their vote, in the interests of avoiding the possibility of unwanted bureaucracy down the line. --- Charles Stewart 20:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

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.