Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of circulating Africa coins

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery of circulating Africa coins

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics. Little use in the main namespace. MER-C 12:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please discuss at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Africa coins
• Keep — This article and the other like it have been nominated by a user whose first edit was today and involved deleting articles. All of these articles have been created and approved by members of the Numismatics Project and provide encyclopedic information. – Zntrip 21:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Repeating my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Africa coins: Keep. The issue here can be addressed by adding explanatory text in each sub-section. Pure galleries should be moved to Commons, but galleries that include textual material fall more under the scope of Wikipedia than the scope of Commons. Note to closing admin: all of these nominations should perhaps be handled en bloc, as several nominations point to the one I referenced above. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this article would be notable if it were all text. Adding pictures of the coins improves the article. -Kubigula (ave) 02:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Zntrip's and Tito's comments.Noroton 02:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Zntrip's and Tito Joe I 23:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep or move:

(Since people still vote everywhere and ignore my suggestion of pooling the discussion in one place, I'm gonna do the same)

• Usefulness: It goes without saying that an overview of all images are extremely useful to editors. And it is not just for the editors. When sectioned and captioned properly, interested readers can have a nice view of various things, e.g. evolution, similarities, subtle differences, etc. And ironically, while I support keeping the galleries, I must say that the gallery is useful for spotting duplicates, and further, for deletion of duplicate images. Categories simply sort the images by name and that is not very useful.
• Policy: See Wikipedia:Galleries. Just because it is a gallery does not guarantee a deletion. There are Gallery of the Kings and Queens of Great Britain and Gallery of sovereign-state flags and from the gallery of flag, there are links to even more galleries.
• Format: The policy states that the gallery must be captioned and provide links. See Gallery of banknotes, there are links to the individual currency articles. And links to the gallery? If you look closely at Template talk:Infobox Currency, you'll find that the infobox is perfectly capable of linking to the galleries. The only reason why linking to gallery is not deployed is because I don't feel the gallery pages are not organized enough yet. I am perfectly willing and able to work on those. All in all, deletion is not the solution to these short comings.
• Cost: Gallery of banknotes is too large and it should be broken down. That I agree. However, there are a number of ways to break these down. I am still debating on this. But one thing is for sure. I don't think there should be "gallery of circulating ...", as the status of circulation can be hard to determine sometimes and it changes over time. See User talk:Searchme/Archive 2#Gallery of *** coins. The opening question for me is where to draw the borders.

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:09, 21 October 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.