Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Koestler book covers and other images


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Koestler book covers and other images

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Nothing here but a picture gallery. The creator's rationale for the existence of this as a separate article is not all that convincing. Delete or at least merge with parent article.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 15:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to commons: a non-encyclopedic image gallery. - Altenmann >t 15:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The rationale for the page Arthur Koestler book covers and other images is to demonstrate (a) the variations in book covers from edition to edition, (b) variations between US and UK editions, and (c) to illustrate relevant personalities and events. The inclusion of all of these within the main article Arthur Koestler would make it too large and cluttered. By having added a link in the page of the main article of the subject, readers are now able to find further information on book cover variations etc. 3ig-350125 (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the exact rationale I found unconvincing. The above suggestion to transfer to Commons is the best alternative. By the way, the parent article is not yet large enough for this to be a major obstacle. See WP:SIZE. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 16:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, an image version of listcruft. Possible A3 Speedy delete, only one sentence keeps this from being an empty image gallery. The rationale given might be a good rationale for an article about Koestler book covers, but this isn't an article, it's a gallery, which isn't considered a proper encylopedia entry. Hairhorn (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Retain - There are over 50 titles by or about Koestler. Some have multiple editions. Even though the main article about Koestler is not oversize at present, it will grow and it would be too tedious for the reader if the main article was cluttered with so many book covers. As long as the new article makes it clear, in a brief introduction, that it is about Koestler-related book covers and other related images it is, imho, a legit encyclopedic article on its own. In fact, the very inclusion of so many images in the main Koestler article would run the risk of making it unencyclopedic. 3ig-350125 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the risk of making the article unencyclopedic, please take a look at Highway 25 Bridge, Quebec, which I am slowly building as the construction progresses. But there is a difference: in the bridge article, all pictures were taken by myself and qualify as free content. Here, you are using "fair use" images in a way Wikipedia is legally not allowed to let you. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. And shouldn't this be G12? Per Non-free_content, we can use book covers for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary), in this particular article, books aren't being discussed, it's a random collection of book covers. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 17:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. book images in articles on individal books only, with non free use rationale. other images, if free, post to commons, then link to article on him if it helps the article. this is not an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Spaceman and Mercurywoodrose. This isn't an article--and if it were, it would be an essay. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTREPOSITORY and violation of WP:NFC criterion 8. Deor (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2009 (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.