Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyline

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. Singularity 06:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skyline

Skyline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article is nothing but a image gallery of various skylines, and only has a paragraph on skylines. There isn't enough here to warrant it's own article. Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete perhaps an article could be written on this subject, but this one doesn't work as one and I can't imagine an encyclopedic take on this at this point. JJL (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. While certainly not a long article, I don't see the need for deletion. The page is over 4 years old ([1]) and has over 250 backlinks. ([2]) —BradV 01:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Longetivity is not a reason to keep the article. It is just a four year old image gallery, and we don't need one on Wikipedia. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This article is completely useless as encyclopædic material. An article shouldn't just be a gallery. Tavix (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - notable topic about a important attribute of a city. Way too many pictures but not a reason to delete. MarsRover (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete then redirect Skyline (disambiguation) to Skyline. Article is merely a dicdef with a lot of pictures. A simple mention on the disambig page along with a link to the wiktionary entry (assuming it exists) would suffice. ~EdGl 02:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The phenomenon of a city skyline is a well-known and surely well-studied topic. Ridiculously large galleries can be deleted to leave a short stub article, but there's no reason that it's too short to be an article, although of course it could easily be expanded significantly. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The article is clearly pretty bad and needs massive cleanup, but it's at least theoretically possible that an encyclopaedic article could be written on this subject. Terraxos (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Maybe take a few pictures away? Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but take many pictures away. Commons categories now act as image galleries; maybe they didn't four years ago. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Even if it's a mess now, this definitely deserves an article. I agree with Dhartung; toss the gallery (maybe include one photo on the right side) and put a commons link. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The concept is valid enough, so is the paragraph. The article is therefore better than nothing. Perhaps not the huge image gallery though which could be moved to Commons leaving a link here to point to anyone interested in viewing it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is an important aspect of many cities. Just because of the overload of pictures, doesn't mean it should be deleted. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 06:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is a fine article with lots of potential and its use of images seems quite appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Valid concept, valid article. Article needs rewrite, clean up and expansion, not deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep — Although it isn't currently in good condition and needs a rewrite, that doesn't warrant deletion. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 23:27, 5 April 2008 (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.