Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian royal symbols

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 no consensus. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian royal symbols

Canadian royal symbols (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete: As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of United Kingdom academic heraldry - fair use images cannot be used in gallery format par terms of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #8. --G2bambino 17:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: I concur. The fair use images have been removed from this article, but as with the above noted AfD, the remaining article is incomplete and can not be complete due to fair use usage restrictions in place on Wikipedia. --Durin 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - even if an article is not complete, it's not a reason for delition. Additionally, many images used in this page are PD. --Qyd 05:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 18:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• I am loathe to delete this because I think it is useful, but if the UK article was deleted, this one should be too. GreenJoe 06:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - An article about Canadian royal symbols would probably be an excellent idea (if watched closely for OR), but this ain't that. -- Jonel | Speak 08:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and while we're at it, {{cleanup}} and {{expand}}. There really is no policy basis to delete the article. It is encyclopedic, but could use a much better introductory paragraph or paragraphs. Agent 86 22:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• There is potentially a way to make this a worthwhile and valid article, but a simple gallery page isn't the way to do that. If it can be made into a more legitimately encyclopedic article, then keep; otherwise, delete. Bearcat 23:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It can be made into something more than a gallery page. A proper introduction, with some history, by someone more familiar with this topic would do wonders (I've taken a stab at it). In many ways, this is not so much a gallery as it is a list, meeting the purpose of WP:LIST. Agent 86 19:41, 15 January 2007 (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.