Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose 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. Flowerparty■ 10:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rose gallery

move to commons or delete. Wikipedia not photo album--Shizhao 06:24, 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 per above. --Mane 13:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicate. --Terence Ong 14:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Duplicate of what?
• Keep the gallery was part of the Rose page. It got so big that it was decided that it should be split. This page exisits because there were too many pics on the main rose page so they had to split it. In this case Wikipedia is a photo album. Do you have any better reason to delete this? Tobyk777 00:47, 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 or listify, useful and encyclopedic collection of pictures. Also good to keep this out of the main Rose article, to decrease load times. Kusma (討論) 01:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is an important function of an encyclopedia. Please note that photos that are on Commons are not "here"; all that's here are links to them. As a result, the article Rose gallery is 18 kilobytes long. That is a small price to pay for a collection of encyclopedic information. Fg2 03:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it is a good companion for Rose without making Rose too large. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-10 04:46Z
• Keep this is useful. kotepho 05:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is very useful. It would be nice to have an article on every kind of flower. I do like to know what I am looking at when I see a flower. Miskatonic 15:40, 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 07:29, 11 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 04:04, 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.