Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Sistine Chapel ceiling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. There does not seem to be substantial support for deletion of this article, despite some feelings that it would be more appropriate to Commons. Thanks to Amandajm for the offer to improve the article. --Tony Sidaway 21:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gallery of Sistine Chapel ceiling
Wikipedia is not a collection of images, photographs, or media files. I recommend that this be transwikied to an image gallery page on Commons. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment As it is, the article is no good. But it seems like the images could be taken and discussed individually, which could flesh it out into a decent article. It's not my field, so I wouldn't attempt such an undertaking, but it seems that that would be a preferable alternative to deletion. faithless (speak) 06:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)- Transwiki - to Commons. Other's work doesn't have to just be deleted. --Emesee 06:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete page and transwiki anything not already on Commons. The main article, Sistine Chapel ceiling, already covers this topic rather well. ObfuscatePenguin 06:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete After perusing Sistine Chapel ceiling, I've changed my mind. Subject is already covered quite thoroughly. faithless (speak) 08:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, it might need some work, but in my opinion this might well be converted to a decent article on the Art of the Sistine Chapel ceiling, where the different sections are shown, discussed and explained. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Sistine Chapel ceiling already discusses the art, although it could easily be expanded some. (It doesn't discuss the plaster all that much.) --Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or transwiki many notable artists have galleries on wikipedia, Sistine Chapel is one of the most famous displays of art in the world. Definitely do not delete the images, rather incorporate them into Sistine Chapel ceiling, transfer to Wikimedia Commons if necessary. -RiverHockey 14:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Commons and place appropriate link in Sistine Chapel ceiling article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The reason why I created this gallery is that the collection at Commons was a bit of a jumble. Since I created this article, the Commons collection of Sistine Chapel material has been divided up into a number of small sections. I'm not in favour of this, and want a concise collection, clearly labelled, with some discussion at one or other location, with a direct from the main page.
- I have just added more information to the page, and could add still more, and also some of the missing images. This page does not discuss the 1.history 2.process 3.theology. This leaves room to make comments about each individual picture, which would combine well with the general article that looks at the scheme in general and cites particualr works as exemplary.
- The other option is to have a separate page for each work, which seems a bit extreme. However, because this was a five year project, we are essentially looking at a collection of artworks, that combine to a single enormous artwork. If Michelangelo had only painted the "Creation of Adam" his fame would have been made.
- To sum up, I think it is better to present the individual works together in this gallery and discuss each of them briefly, so that the entire scheme is apparent, but the individual quality of the various works is recognised. This mmethod makes possiblle written comparison between the works which is noot the aim of the wikiCommons page which serves as a repository.
- Comment wikipedia recognises Lists as a valuable method of displaying informmation. Galleries like this, as distinct from Commmons because they contain more encyclopedic information, are also very vaulable, particularly to the art student.
- Further Comment, In order not to lose the pics I have put together, I have dumped those not already shown within the text into the major article. But it is quite a long article and I would rather not leave them there, but have this gallery functional.
- Amandajm 08:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- And still further Comment I'm prepared to do the work on this page to make it more encyclopedic, for the reasons I have given above. However, I am not prepared to put in hours of work on a page earmarked for deletion, so you had better make a decision one way or the other as to whether you want a collection of pics with descriptive and comparative information, or not. and if this means a change to wiki policy in order to better serve the needs of Art History writers and students, then so be it. There is no better way to serve a pictorial subject, than pictorially. Amandajm 09:22, 1 November 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.
