Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Images of castles

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus, Kept. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images of castles, Images of Crystal Palace

From WP:NOT: Wikipedia articles are not collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. Coffee 10:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for both, perhaps one or two of the best Crystal Palace images should be merged into The Crystal Palace Keithlard 15:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Images of castles. I once had a picture of a castle in my mind but no other information. I was able to use this page to find it, identify the name, and go to the page for more information. It worked out really well and without this page I would have had a hard time finding the name. Think of the pictoral listing as a visual index which has a great deal power in terms of locating the appropriate wikipedia page when the name is not known. Also, I do not see the lack of text in the article as a problem since the raw list of images serves the purpose very well. Hilmar 17:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Are these all already located at Wikimedia Commons? It seems a shame to waste them, but clearly they aren't in accord with Wikipedia policy. Delete, with regrets.--Scimitar ^parley 18:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the problem identified by the nominator is not that the creator of the article put the castle pictures in Wikipedia, but that the article contains only pictures, no text. Crypticfirefly 04:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the pages: Wikipedia is not an image gallery. Any images that are under a free license should be moved to Commons. --Carnildo 21:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Some very well-known castles here, and some excellent pictures. This is a nice resource, and serves Wikipedia far better than pages and pages of nonsensical school articles. Denni☯ 01:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I disagree that this is a "collection of photographs or media files" as contemplated by WP:NOT. It is a visual index of castles as Hilmar noted, and it is catagorized by country. Crypticfirefly 04:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC) I should add, my vote for Keep particularly applies to the Images of Castles article. The Images of Crystal Palace do seem to fall more into the "collection of photographs" description. They should be moved to Commons as suggested by Carnildo. These articles really are very different and it only causes confusion to vote on both of them in the same vote. Crypticfirefly 04:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I contributed several of the photos of castles and would have no regrets if this were moved to Commons. Provided the licenses are appropriate, Commons is the best place for collections like these, and has an article, commons:Castle, that is very similar. Castle already links to it. Fg2 05:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Commons is a Wikimedia project, just as Wikipedia is, and Wikimedia has identified Commons as the place to put photos and galleries. WP can link to Commons and Commons can link to WP. Additionally, Commons can have captions in multiple languages. So, an article like this can serve a wider audience than the English Wikipedia's article. Fg2 05:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no one is suggesting deleting the images, but a page that just contains images clearly falls into WP:NOT, make Category:Images of Castles and tag all the images like that if need be.--nixie 05:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Indeed, I think there's little doubt that these article are clearly contradictory to the guidelines in WP:NOT. If anyone wants these to serve as a "visual index", they could include pictures in List of castles. Coffee 05:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment; One issue in moving/adding images to the List of castles is page load time. If someone has slow Internet access they will not want all those images embedded with the list of names so there is some utility in maintaining two separate pages. Both pages serve as pointers to the individual castle pages each of which employ a different search strategy to find the information you need. Hilmar 10:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or move The pages are useful as they are. I'm against losing the images. I'd support a sensible renaming to List or Category. --Johntex\^talk 09:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, moving anything that needs it to the Commons. Tuf-Kat 16:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, the commons cannot deal with things that are 'fair use' (not applicable here, but applicable in some cases) so it isn't an end all and be all. As well, articles like this are useful for people wanting to research castles instead of having to comb though the commons. --ShaunMacPherson 12:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Since, as you said, 'fair use' is not an issue in this case, I wonder what advantage this Wikipedia article has over commons:Castle, which has more photos in one article than this one does. Commons also has commons:Category:Castles. Fg2 12:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Eventually a caption under each image can be produced, such as the general architecture, location, age etc. Wikicommons is a dump of GFDL files, it provides no organized context or interpretation. Useful, but I think not a replacement for a list or gallery article such at these. As addition, I do not see the harm in having an article like this on *Wikipedia* even though one maybe on Wikicommons, Wikipedia is not paper. Contact me if you want me to vote to save a visual or list gallery, I will happily cast my vote in favor. --ShaunMacPherson 11:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a visual list. Klonimus 08:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both, smacks of an inability to choose a good image and put it in the relevant article. --redstucco 08:35, 10 October 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.