Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Sistine Chapel ceiling (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   keep. Courcelles (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Gallery of Sistine Chapel ceiling
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY, should be on Commons.  — fetch ·  comms   00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per I don't like second AfD nominations. moreno oso (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that was from 2007...  — fetch ·  comms   00:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Inadequate reason for deletion. 80.84.55.209 (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an invaluable art historical resource, a legitimate expansion of this aspect of Sistine Chapel Ceiling per WP:SUMMARY. It is not merely a collection of images but a well-constructed article with commentary. Of necessity it incorporates many images. Images are another (and in this case highly desirable) way of communicating information. If, instead of the images, each one was replaced by text describing it as fully and closely as possible, there would be no notion of deleting the article. It is obviously far better to show the image than attempt the (impossible and ludicrous) description of it in words. There seems to be a widespread devaluation of the image in favour of text on wikipedia. There needs to be a rethink of this attitude.  Ty  01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why this cannot provide the same encyclopedic value on Commons, whose scope is to host only educational material.  — fetch ·  comms   01:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning there is no need to have any images at all on Wikipedia. Anyone wanting them can be referred to Commons. Your nom cited WP:NOTREPOSITORY. The relevant part of that (#4) 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". This is not a mere collection. It is a structured article and it does not have "no text". It is carefully annotated. Therefore the nom is invalid.  Ty  02:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. –  Ty  01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This, like the FA Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes, is essentially an overflow from the 78kb Sistine Chapel ceiling. It has considerable commentary in text and captions (all obviously in English only) & should stay here, not go to Commons, which already has several related galleries (in various languages) here, and see links at bottom. Typically for Commons, they are in different categories. Personally I think Commons galleries are mostly a plague, for a number of reasons, but that's not the point here. None of them have the extensive commentary that relates to the English WP article. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * PS which idiot put this in Category:AfD debates (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic)!! Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not me, but I've changed it to category F, "fiction and the arts". Whether it meets the first definition can be debated, but I trust the nom will agree it meets the second.  Ty  03:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Essential, valuable resource, an important accompaniment to the articles on the Sistine Chapel and Michelangelo, especially this article Sistine Chapel ceiling...Modernist (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. One of the very few works in western art of such ambitious scope, grand achievement, and popular recognition that merits such coverage. JNW (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The reason that the pictures have been placed in a separate gallery is simply because the parent article is already long. Ideally, all the idividual sections should be illustrated within the main.
 * While the pics are indeed all lodged in Wikimedia Commons, this gallery has the advantages of being easy to view, and not containing extraneous images. It is clearly ordered.
 * If this were to be slightly reformatted and renamed "List of Michelangelo's paintings on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel", we would not be holding this discussion.
 * Amandajm (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Commons as a gallery page. Wikipedia is not a photo gallery. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the keep arguments. WP:NOTREPOSITORY #4 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". Therefore this is not just a "photo gallery" per your statement. It has text and it has an encyclopedic context. I think your wanting to remove this from Wikipedia is potentially very harmful. Anyone in academia or just the average person in the street would consider this article to be a worthwhile part of an encyclopedia.  Ty  14:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Serves as an excellent and usefully-organised supplement to the main article. WP:NOTREPOSITORY doesn't apply here at all, since the article is hardly a "mere collection" lacking text. I agree with Amadajm that if the article were called a "List", it never would have been nominated for deletion. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The included summaries of the imagery are encyclopedic enough in nature to justify saving it, provided these summaries are referenced enough. -- Dlrohrer  2003  03:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Very worthy article. Keep. Of course, keep.Sargentprivate (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2010 (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.