Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of U.S. Artillery Regiments


 * 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. Consensus is that this content is better served as a gallery on Commons. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Coats of arms of U.S. Artillery Regiments

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a collection of images - a gallery - that should be on Commons, in accordance with WP:Galleries. WP:IG: ''One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. .. Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images.''

Previous similar page deletions include Articles for deletion/Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery, and Articles_for_deletion/Field Army insignia of the United States Army, as well as Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of micronations, insignia deletion discussion (and the second nom), and Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of U.S. Cavalry Regiments and Infantry Regiments. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom, not an article but a image repository as presented which Wikipedia is not; it would be a good "grouping page" for Commons. Kierzek (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- as mentioned at prior similar AfDs, this belongs in Commons. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep.  Maybe I'm just misinterpreting WP:IG, but I see it talking about an indiscriminate collection of images.  This isn't indiscrimate; it's the colors for a defined selection of military units.  And, the introductory paragraphs seem to me to be enough to make this more than just an image gallery.  Call it WP:IAR if you have to, but I think this is a useful article worthy of keeping.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with . This is not a indiscriminate collection of images, it is more of a visual list article.  All of emblems are prominent in the corresponding article of the division, and here they are all compiled in one place.  I think it add value to the project - it shows all the emblems in order and gives background. There are eight other similar articles in Category:United States military coats of arms, and I think they should all be kept. MB 23:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, WP's rules direct that while this presentation has a place, the place is in WikiCommons, not Wikipedia. if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. The place to argue WP:IG is that talk page, not here. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom, and per the relevant previous AfDs. This would be great on Commons, but not here Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, the rule is quite clear in this case, and the gallery will make perfect sense on Commons, where it will help to organize a group of related images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2016 (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.