Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery (3rd nomination)

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 Delete there were a number of concerns raised and issues to be considered before closing this. The policy WP:NOT in particular WP:NOT#REPOSITORY while this states ..without text, the title of the work maybe "text" it doesn't convey anything either. The next point of consideration is "usefulness" whether as that or as "encyclopedia", to this without any context to individual images it is nothing more than a duplicate of commons:William-Adolphe Bouguereau on Commons. That brings into the equation Wikimedia Commons and whether its policies enable the same presentation. All the images are stored on commons and everything in this article is already there(including three images I identified as not being in this gallery). Commons has changed its policies to encourage the creation and use of galleries as a better way of presenting media.

Finally considering the previous AfDs, the first was a consensus to keep there was a substancial commentary to transwiki to Commons in December 2005, Commons was only 3 months old and still had a significant period of development to undergo. The second AfD had an almost unanimous transwiki and delete opinion expressed as such that was the result. This AfD was raised as a matter of courtesy where in reality its was a WP:CSD#G4 candidate, that being considered the Keep opinions need to provide substantial reasonings beyond usefulness that hasnt been the case.

I've already ensured there is a nlink back to the article William-Adolphe Bouguereau on the commons page, and I'll link directly to the commons gallery from that article. Gnangarra 13:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery

William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This gallery is identical to the gallery on Commons at commons:William-Adolphe Bouguereau. It's also been deleted before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery 2, but before that it was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery so I figure running it through AfD again is better than a speedy. Bryan Derksen 22:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP is not a "collections of photographs or media files" in WP:NOT Corpx 01:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because something that has already passed two of these must be good enough to a reasonable amount of editors to remain on the site. No need to keep rehashing the same arguments. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, the second AfD's result was to transwiki to commons. I wouldn't have put it up for deletion again if both of the previous AfDs had been to keep or no consensus. Bryan Derksen 04:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Commons is where it belongs, and it's already there. Deor 02:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Belongs in Commons, where it already lives, and the article for the artist has a link to the commons page. Resolute 04:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete just repeats material now on Commons, with no added value, so not needed. Johnbod 13:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Commons is an image repository for material that can be used by other projects. It is not a substitute for them. If the material has encyclopedic value then it should be within wikipedia, where it can be monitored by Wikipedia editors, who are not necessarily Commons editors. The Commons page is less attractively laid out and has surplus information. Commons is multilingual. Commons pages can end up looking like this, i.e. downright ugly, which is no way to view art. Commons is a workshop, not a gallery. This page does not fail WP:NOT, which says, "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context". the encyclopedic context is William-Adolphe Bouguereau, which this is a legitimate content fork of. No one would quibble if there was a list of the artist's works. It makes sense to have pictures to go with that list. You can only know art by looking at it. Tyrenius 00:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - personally not my favorite painter, but this gallery is within reach of people who like the work, and seem to use the images. I really think it should be available. Modernist 00:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Modernist —  $PЯINGrαgђ  01:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Tyrenius and Modernist. This has encyclopedic value, and is no more a violation of WP:NOT than any other verifiable list. If the pictures were gone, it would still be a list. The purpose of commons is to look for pictures, not study them. This should remain here. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 01:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It has encyclopedic value. It's incomplete, though. where is The Fair Spinner? --Scottandrewhutchins 19:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is a mere collection of images with no article to go along with it, fails WP:NOT#REPOSITORY without question. Jay32183 21:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• The article that goes along with it is William-Adolphe Bouguereau. You will see under William-Adolphe Bouguereau#Selected gallery of images that this is a content fork of that article, as is commonly made for material that takes up too much space in the main article. This is the "encyclopedic context" required by WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. -- Tyrenius 21:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• You do not fork an article to make one that violates WP:NOT. This article has zero content. Saying that there's content in another article is meaningless. There is no excuse for this kind of gallery, especially one that duplicates a Commons gallery. Jay32183 22:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• So would it be OK to move all the images back into the main article where there is the text? And do you object to all lists on the same basis? Tyrenius 23:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Not all lists are content forks, and even many that are do not violate WP:NOT and in fact conform to WP:LIST. Similar content is no reason to keep this, maybe it should be deleted to. I haven't examined every list, I can only decide "keep" or "delete" on ones I have. Jay32183 00:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• So would it be OK to move all the images back into the main article where there is the text? Tyrenius 08:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have no problem with images on the main article. Might be manual of style conflicts, but that's a concern for FAC, not AFD. Jay32183 22:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• That is an argument for merge, not delete. Tyrenius 00:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• No it isn't. There isn't any content here. The history does not need to be kept because pictures were added to another article. Jay32183 03:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Delete" means it shouldn't be on wikipedia. You're not saying it shouldn't be on wikipedia: you're just disagreeing about where it should be and think it would be OK in a different place. If you take material from one article and put it in another, the technical term is "merge". Tyrenius 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Clearly this list is both useful and has plenty of content, it has encyclopedic value for several editors and as Tyrenius points out it is in context with the main article. This isn't just an orphaned batch of random pictures, there is an article about a then popular 19th century artist (albeit a revised reputation today) however the pictures remain in context with the main article, and should stay. Modernist 02:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • First of all, being useful is not, in itself, a reason to keep. Second, by being its own article the gallery is out of context. The gallery is on the Commons. Instead of duplicating it here, just have the main page link to it, which it already does. Jay32183 03:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • So in other words being useful is bad, so whats good? - being useless? These images might be merged with written text, and content, hmm the article perhaps, logic. Modernist 05:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • No, "being useful" isn't bad, "it's useful" is not a sound keep argument, because there are plenty of useful things that do not belong on Wikipedia. Dictionary definitions are useful, but they belong on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Jay32183 22:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        • We are in agreement, useful is good, however this material should be kept because it is often used by editors, perhaps merge with the main article would be best. Modernist 23:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
          • No, I said claiming that something is useful does not mean it should be kept. In fact, I said that this page should be deleted as a blatant violation of WP:NOT. Have you actually read WP:USEFUL. It says not to say "Keep - Useful". It doesn't matter if the list is useful, we delete useful stuff all the time. Jay32183 03:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
            • This isn't a random list or a telephone book. These images are clearly being used to illustrate text, and to represent this particular artists work and his ouevre. As I stated earlier this is not an artist that I like, but others do and it's valid and worthwhile content. Probably this gallery should merge with the main article. This just sounds like the IDONTLIKEIT so it should be deleted arguement. Obviously you delete things all the time, as you say - and certain things should not be deleted. Like these images. Modernist 08:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
              • My responses to you have not been an argument for deletion, they have been an explanation for why your argument isn't valid. My argument for deletion has been that this is just a repository of images, which Wikipedia is not, but Wikimedia Commons is. This arleady exists on Wikimedia Commons, so there isn't anything to worry about. Jay32183 19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
                • I have already addressed those points above by my "keep" post. Tyrenius 21:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - if it's already Commons, this particular article shouldn't be here - especially if that was the outcome of a previous AfD (I don't personally like to second-guess previous results). I appreciate the encyclopedic value of this article, but the "selected works" section in the artist article should serve the purpose. Any work of his judged not sufficiently significant for his "selected works" section can rest in commons, with a link to the commons provided in the main article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Tyrenius, with a minor addition from me: not only this is an expansion of the encyclopedical contents of the main article, but also serves to alleviate article size issues. I strongly believe the interpretation of WP:NOT#REPOSITORY given above on this matter to be well-intentioned, but misguided; this entry by no means is "an indiscriminate collection of images", but serves to illustrate the works of the main article's subject, without adding to its already significant size. Phaedriel - 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I would also add that this article (of images) should be subject to editing like any other. It has already been pointed out that a particular painting is absent which should be included. Furthermore, it is not necessarily beneficial to have every image on Commons included. There may be a case for trimming, for example, so that it gives a balanced overview. This should be done in conjunction with the main William-Adolphe Bouguereau article, so that ideally the two work together. I think the gallery there should be reduced, and images integrated into the text. Then for a decade-by-decade survey this gallery would do an admirable job. Some brief text might be included also. Such a format could be extended to other artists who merit it. Tyrenius 00:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Either Keep or Merge -- Why wouldn't images be kept with the article on the artist who made the paintings? Bus stop 02:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Tyrenius has made points that I have made elsewhere. Galleries are essential for understanding some subjects, suchas art. For a variety of reasons, I feel separating galleries form the main article is the ideal solution. I also feel that a gallery on Commons is a very poor solution, and that without galleries on Wikipedia itself we are failing in our mission to provide encyclopedic coverage. For those who point at WP:NOT, I believe that this gallery passes as WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles" (emphasis added). This gallery does not have no text. Dsmdgold 03:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Not one valid keep argument yet. There is no denying that this is a repository of images and fails WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. This is already on Commons and no amount of editing will save it. This gallery does not provide any content whatsoever. Deleting it is the only thing that can be done. Consensus is not determined by vote counting. People who don't make valid arguments get ignored. Jay32183 18:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This belongs in commons, and Wikipedia is not a list of photographs or pictures, WP:NOT --AW 18:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I see several valid Keep arguments beside my own: In particular the Keep arguments put forth by Tyrenius, Phaedriel, Dsmdgold and others. Clearly the material should be merged or kept. As stated above WP:NOT#REPOSITORY doesn't really apply here or fit the circumstances of this gallery and its relationship to the main article, these are art works, not dictionary words. Modernist 19:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a useful reference and I fail to see how Wikipedia would be improved by its deletion. I think that it is important to apply guidelines with the benefit of the Project always in mind. BlueValour 23:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Soft redirect to commons:William-Adolphe Bouguereau. I feel this is the only way to gain consensus on an apparently contentious issue, particularly since the Commons gallery has the exact same content as this article.-Wafulz 13:27, 18 July 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.