Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots


 * 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 of the debate was: sent to copyright violations --fvw *  22:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

===Gallery of Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots, Gallery of Super Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots, Gallery of Sega Mega Drive and Sega Genesis screenshots, Gallery of Sega Master System screenshots, Gallery of Atari 2600 screenshots, Gallery of Atari 5200 screenshots, Gallery of Atari 7800 screenshots, Screenshots of Commodore VIC-20 games, Gallery of Intellivision screenshots, Gallery of ColecoVision screenshots and other similar galleries=== is not a mirror for mere collections of images.
 * NOTE: I'm progressively adding other galleries as I find them. They're all essentially the same so it makes no difference to the votes already cast, and the more the closing admin can shoot down at once the better. GarrettTalk 16:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to the Wikimedia Commons and retain any link to this article as a link to the replacement WC article/gallery. --SuperDude 06:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * All of the screenshots are classified fair use, and Wikipedia Commons allows only free (not fair use) content. – Seancdaug 10:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point, then just delete. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. --fvw *  10:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedias have articles showcasing art, articles like William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery, why deny Wikipedia the benefit of this type of knowledge? The article is an archive to videogame imagery and useful for completing other video game articles. --ShaunMacPherson 20:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yup, I was just about to do that when it popped up in recent changes but that was you marking it. transwiki and Delete. --fvw *  06:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Make sure to see what links here so that the top level section tab can mention all the articles that link to this ballot. --SuperDude 06:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah right, a mult-nom. I agree with them all. --fvw *  07:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. Marskell 10:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons stated above. – Seancdaug 11:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoa, hold on a moment, I just noticed something. "Other similar galleries"? What, precisely, is a "similar gallery"? I'm withdrawing my vote for now on the premise that I don't really think it's a good idea to fill out a blank check for the deletion of any page someone feels is similar to the ones explicitly listed.... I agree with the rationale, but would like some clarification on this point. – Seancdaug 04:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is getting better and better.... As per Garrett's comment at the top, it most certainly does "make a difference." I would agree with the deletion of all of these articles, provided they were presented clearly at the very beginning of the vote. But this moving target approach stinks, and it's not giving any of the articles the chance for interested parties to make a countercase. I'm changing my vote to keep, as this whole vote is looking more and more like a fiasco, no matter how sound the reasoning is. – Seancdaug 22:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inclusion in an image gallery is not enough justification for fair use. - SimonP 13:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the galleries, but of course use applicable images with any applicable existing articles unless or "more fair use" images are already in place. 23skidoo 13:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. I guess we shouldn't have a "mirror" for mere collections of images such as this one: William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery. Why limit Wikipedia not to have this material, it is an archive of what video games used to look like and such information is hard to find. Wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 20:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not much value. Oleg Alexandrov 20:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep These screenshots are of good value. They are okay for fair use. Wikipedia IS an indiscriminate collection of information. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 21:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT indiscriminant. Also, I'm skepical of fair use being applicable to mass galleries.  &mdash; Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think it might be helpful for one to see a gallery of screenshots for video games.  Marcus2 22:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially by system so we can see the evolution of gaming graphics. Where else can this information be found, it really should be included on Wikipedia.--ShaunMacPherson 22:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Here are a few ways of getting around this: Create an article on the evolution of gaming graphics, then use some of these images to illustrate, or create articles for the games that don't already have articles, make sure the images are used, and make sure an easily accessible list page or category is made available (if not already in place).23skidoo 22:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete galleries (per SimonP, this is not a valid Fair Use). The images themselves, in their respective articles for the game in question, are fine. Sabine's Sunbird 22:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. --Carnildo 22:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and send them to the Commons. --ApolloBoy 00:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As was mentioned above, they're fair use images so they can't be put on commons. And as was also mentioned above, galleries of fair use images are copyvios. --fvw *  00:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment While the reasons seem valid, it would be a shame to lose these. Could, perhaps, these be moved to someones namespace? Something similar has been done here: User:Raul654/favpics/Others' pictures &mdash;Snargle 00:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, those are free images, so you can do with them what you want, including making galleries. Fair use images on the other hand are images we don't have a licence to use but are allowed to use anyway for a fairly small number of purposes and in a fairly limited set of contexts. Galleries aren't one of those contexts. --fvw *  00:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT specifically says that Wikipedia is not the place for galleries of images.  User:Zoe|(talk) 04:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, this VfD is nonsense, why should this be deleted when other galleries for artists or other recognised image media are kept? Nintendo and SEGA are notable companies as well as consoles, the imagery provided represents the progress that these companies have succeeded throughout the 20th Century with their video games. I find that this is of extreme importance to any archive or record relating to the history of video games and consoles. Piecraft 12:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This AfD is not nonsense, so long as the official Wikipedia policy at WP:NOT specifically forbids it. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Then explain to me the purpose for such a galley as William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery ? Because as far as I can see both seem to be related in regards of displaying images related to an artist or in this case a video-game console. In regards to the video game console which so happens to be SEGA and Nintendo - both are notable and I think it is relevant to have a record of images based on the evolution of graphics of the games that both consoles have notable produced throughout the years. Unless you can come up with a better argument then I will continue to consider this VfD nonsense - I hope that was made clear. Also please be made sure that I am aware of what Wikipedia is not and is, and as far as I can see concerning the WP:NOT I quote "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, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources." I can't see how the aforementioned article is an example of this. It is a gallery I agree, however a gallery of images that have been used throughout Wikipedia for articles related to the games, also they have been displayed under an encyclopedic context with added text and references to the individual articles of the games - just as other lists have been made, only in this case we are given information related to the evolution of the games in terms of their graphics and their respective screen shot. And whilst you're at it you lot should consider this entire category: [|Wikipedia Image Galleries]. Null point. Piecraft 23:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Those galleries are in the namespace, I'm assuming to provide a place for editors to find images to illustrate their articles. And the images are free. These are not. I'm fairly sure no one is proposing to delete this images themselves, as they are valid fair use images in the context of the articles for the games. And the proposed article by 23skidoo would also be a valid fair use. But thiese galleries aren't. Sabine's Sunbird 02:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep in some way that isn't copyright violating, or against policy. The information on these pages is valuable. --Boivie 00:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No can do. A simple gallery of images can't be fair use. --Carnildo 04:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: try to make a proposal to Jim Wales to see if he'll let Wikimedia Commons accept fair use images for the transwiki process of these images. --SuperDude 03:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Who decides which games get put onto the galleries? Everyone?  No one?  What if I add a screenshot of my favourite game, that's OK yes?  What if everyone does it?  How are we to say which ones are in, and which ones aren't.  They should all be let in, and hence should just be a category of images.  The categories should be revised and sorted by console/gaming system.  If one wants to follow the evolving nature of a console, then a few select screenshots should be included with the article on the main console. - Hahnchen 03:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Take it to Wikimedia Commons. Stop trying to include anything and everything that seems remotely "useful" and start reading up on policy. / Peter Isotalo 04:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Read up on policy a bit yourself first, Commons only takes free-use images. :) GarrettTalk 16:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although I don't oppose galleries altogether these ones can't meet fair use. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Heinous abuse of fair use. I suggest that we hunt out other such "screenshots of platform X" galleries and get them deleted too. Personally I think contentless policy-breach galleries are speedyable material, but if we have to drag each through an Afd then so be it. GarrettTalk 16:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - All of these galleries serve a purpose. They are encyclopedic, therefore they belong here. You delete these, then artist articles that are galleries besides these should be deleted as well. -- ZeWrestler   Talk 18:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I totally agree with ZeWrestler. &mdash;Snargle 19:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you are voting keep in violation of Wikipedia official policy. See WP:NOT.  User:Zoe|(talk) 19:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Please explain why Category:Wikipedia image galleries is allowed to exist and this galleries are not? They all would be in the same violation. Yet they are still around.-- ZeWrestler  Talk 19:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Please explain to me User:Zoe|(talk) how this gallery of screen shots falls into the WP:NOT? Because as far as I can see it is exactly as I have indicated in my last statement, a gallery displaying reference worthy images that illustrate an important and encyclopedic purpose, otherwise as I and other have already stated before, you might as well get rid of the ENTIRE Category of Category:Wikipedia image galleries. If you wish to delete this then take it upon yourselves to be hypocrites to allow an entire category to exist. Nuff said. Piecraft 22:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. 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, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources.   User:Zoe|(talk) 22:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * To be fair, there is currently a proposal to move Category:Wikipedia image galleries to the Commons for the very reasons being cited here (and repeated directly above by Zoe). So it's not like there's a clear double standard here. If the images in questions were public domain/free, then they'd be eligible for the same, but they're not, and therefore cannot be moved. – Seancdaug 22:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There seems to be many list articles (of software, linux distributions) etc. Why not a list article of images? I fail to see the harm, especially when the benefits of the article as an archive to video game history are so clear. --ShaunMacPherson 03:38, 26 September 2005 (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.