Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower gallery (2nd 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. Try commons. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Flower gallery
WP:NOT a collection of photos. Already nominated once (see discussion), but people in the previous discussion seemed unaware of List of images/Nature/Plants/Flowers, so it's kind of redundant.  howch e  ng   {chat} 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that many of the "keep" votes from the first go-around were conditional on the gallery being annotated. It's been six months and no such thing has occurred.  howch e  ng   {chat} 15:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The statment that wikipedia is not a collection of photos is in dispute at the moment. Also, the page that you pointed out is a project page, not an enclopedia entry like this one.  On top of that, it's about to be moved to the commons.  This page is encyclopdeic material.  Lots of paper encylopedias have galleries.  We need this in the encyclopedia, not tjust the administration.  Tobyk777 00:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but where exactly does it state that List of images/Nature/Plants/Flowers is going to be moved to the Commons?  howch e  ng   {chat} 00:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Right here: Tobyk777 22:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, what ever became of Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries? This seems to have never been implemented on WP:NOT.  howch e  ng   {chat} 00:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. First of all, the title flower gallery would only be appropriate for an article which described what a flower gallery was. More importantly, though, lists of images are not considered appropriate encyclopedic material, per WP:NOT ("mere collections of photographs or media files"). Zetawoof(&zeta;) 04:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That part of WP:NOT is disupted. And tons of encyclopedias have image galleries.  Tobyk777 22:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, we have a whole catagory of galleries. Tobyk777 22:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There appears to have been some discussion of the policy on image galleries, but it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere since May. And the existence of a whole category for image galleries suggests that we need to figure out what to do with the rest of them. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 23:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - There are hundreds of thousands of flowers, so this gallery can never be anything but an arbitrary collection. Wikipedia doesn't need galleries: unlike paper encyclopedias, wikipedia has easy access to commons. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 10:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete May I add: Wikipedia is not Flickr. Guyanakoolaid 09:52, 25 September 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.