Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower gallery

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flower gallery

move to commons or delete. Wikipedia not photo album--Shizhao 06:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• move. mikka (t) 06:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Photos are already from commons. --minghong 08:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Photos are already from commons. --Ph89 09:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicate. --Terence Ong 14:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As I said with Rose gallery, these articles were created because the gallery sections of pages got too big. Article Size dictates that it be split. Since the gallery was too big a sperate page was created. Are you telling me that we should delete every gallery section in Wikipedia. Sounds like it. That would be stupid just to let you know. Tobyk777 00:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There are too many photos in commons. We don't need to put every one of them here. --minghong 01:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As I said for Rose gallery, the photos are not here; only links to them are here. This is an important way to organize information for an encyclopedia. Fg2 03:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if properly annotated. I think it can be made into a nice gallery showing important types of flowers. Every print encyclopedia I have seen has image galleries similar to this one (with annotations, of course). Kusma (討論) 03:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep encylopedic. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:48Z
• Weak Keep This might be useful if they are captioned and organized in some fashion. kotepho 05:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It needs to be re organized but it is an important page. It shows a wide range of flowers. It would indeed be nice to have a picture and article about every single kind of flower. Miskatonic 15:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete This page is useful, but however, if majorly these photos are from commons, the page should be move to the apporiate page in commons, and also create a link using {{commons}} or {{commonspar}} to link between the article page and commons page. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 04:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Most readers probably don't know what the commons even is until they have been editing for a while. For users who don't contribute and who are just looking around, The link will look like an advertziament since they won't understand it. If you just link to the commons 95% of people who would have seen this won't. Tobyk777 05:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • However in this case, but from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not has been stated that Wikipedia is not the collections of photographs and media files with no text to go with articles. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 07:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      • But yet again, this was part of an article. The article became too big, so the gallery section was split, See Wikipedia:Article size Tobyk777 07:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
        • The Flower gallery page have been found out the first edit at 23:51, 18 December 2005 and the link that created from the Flower page has been created in 23:49, 18 December 2005. So according to the article size, this evidence regarding to Wikipedia:Article size (>50KB) does not exists.--Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 07:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Also see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries for a discusion on modyfing the section WP:NOT cited above. Dsmdgold 04:06, 14 March 2006 (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.