Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of coins (4th 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. Cirt (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Gallery of coins
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOTREPOSITORY: Wikipedia is not the place for mere lists of photographs. Contrary to some of the previous discussions, this is not about the application of fair use, which is irrelevant for my reasoning. These are pages which have been proposed for deletion thrice over the last years (the last nomination is a year and a half ago, so I think I waited sufficiently long before renominating). Each time, people defended them as being useful if textual content is provided. However, no one seems interested to produce said text. We have other decent or good articles on many coins and banknotes, and there is no indication that the articles currently up for deletion will ever be more than a gallery. Furthermore (but this can be solved), they are incomplete and incorrect, which again indicates that not many people are interested in solving the serious problems with these articles, although said improvements were the reason for keeping them for the last two years.

Also nominated:
 * Gallery of circulating Africa coins
 * Gallery of Africa coins
 * Gallery of Asia and Oceania coins
 * Gallery of circulating Asia and Oceania coins
 * Gallery of banknotes
 * Gallery of circulating European coins
 * Gallery of circulating Western hemisphere coins Fram (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as a plain gallery. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 09:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as useful, not "mere". Pawyilee (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you expand on the usefulness of e.g. Gallery of Africa coins or Gallery of circulating European coins? I fail to see any use for thme, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Fram (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. We aren't the place for image dumping.  This is going to be a huge mess to clean up. =O.o= I'm inclined to say speedy for db-content.  Anyone? -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all Wikipedia is not an image gallery, and this is what Commons is for. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coins and banknotes are like flags and coats of arms; the graphical presentation of that sort of information is familiar in print encyclopedias.  My understanding is that different countries have widely different rules governing the copyrightability of images of their currency that may make hosting these pages on Commons problematic given their different standards for inclusion.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whether a gallery of images is useful does not alter whether an article is "merely" a gallery of images.  As noted, Commons is the place for this sort of image collection, especially if it is useful.  Furthermore, if some of these images are (for whatever local copyright reason) unacceptable at Commons, then they very likely cannot be used here without commentary per WP:FU. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all of these collections of images; the images themselves (those which are acceptable, as noted above by Serpent's Choice) can be transwikied to the Commons. Cliff smith  talk  20:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Smerdis. This is exactly the king of thing print excyclopedias do and it provides visual content that could never be properly expressed with just text. Edward321 (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What other encyclopedias does is not a factor in deciding what to do on Wikipedia. Having a repository of images violates WP:NOT, an official policy. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It is established practice that our scope does in fact include as notable whatever other major encyclopedic works of reference  consider appropriate to include. That's a minimum starting point. We have routinely justified articles by their inclusion in such works. DGG (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But why would we want such a gallery? "Because they do it as well" is not really a good answer... What information is given by these articles that isn't already given much better by the articles on individual countries' currencies and so on? Why would we reproduce the Hungarian forint in a couple of galleries if we have a full article on it? Fram (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Individual articles do not allow for compare and contrast of coinage in a given area. As for why some coin images might be unacceptable at Commons, the "local copyright reason" is almost always because no one can find out what the local copyright is in many countries, not even by personally going to their treasuries. Yet that does not stop the international trade in coins, complete with images of what is on offer. What is "on offer" in the galleries proposed for deletion is, as I said, compare and contrast. Pawyilee (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not really sufficient. What is being compared? Nothing. You show a bunch of coins or banknotes, without discussing anything: material, comparative value, size, design, ... What exactly is being "compared and contrasted" here? Or here? "Hey look, Belgium has an eight-sided coin". (Actually, we don't) "Hey, that Austrian coin is much larger than the Belarusian one!" (who knows, the article doesn't tell me). "Hungarian coins are in two colours!" (Only one of them is, in fact). The gallery has no indication, no explanation, as to what can be compared and contrasted, and is very incomplete and incorrect. Furthermore, is "comparison of circulating African coins" or "comparison of circulating Asia and Oceania coins" even a notable subject? Fram (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - this is a clear contravention of WP:NOTREPOSITORY. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:NOTREPOSITORY.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Possibly add the relevant images to a category. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP is not a host for galleries, and without sourced text these articles are useless. Clearly no-one here wants to improve them, any without improvment they are not encylopedic (even if Britanica has such galleries, which i'm not convinced it has).Yobmod (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of images or media files. This is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore is not the place to have repositories of media, in this case images. All of what is contained on those pages can go in Wikimedia Commons, the perfect place for them pages as Wikimedia Commons is a media repository. Mythdon (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - long overdue, per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - all genuine currencies are notable, and should be illustrated in their respective articles, classified using categories. There's no need for a series of gallery pages. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * '''Soft redirect the following:
 * Gallery of coins
 * to Commons:Category:Coins
 * Gallery of circulating Africa coins, Gallery of Asia and Oceania coins, Gallery of circulating Asia and Oceania coins, Gallery of circulating European coins, Gallery of circulating Western hemisphere coins
 * to Commons:Category:Coins by country
 * Gallery of banknotes
 * to Commons:Category:Money (for lack of a better category)
 * I think this will maximize usefulness while remaining true to what Wikipedia is. I also recommend that we keep the article histories, so anyone interested in improving what we've got at Commons can use them as references. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep (changed to delete, see below) Number 1, there is no deadline.  Number 2 WP:NOTPAPER.  If specialized encyclopideas have this, we should too.  That is one of the founding policies.  There is potential here for a great article.  That's all that is required.  Now if there is a fair use issue here, that is entirely different and such images should clearly be removed.  At the least, follow Explodicle's suggestions so this can be improved in the future. Hobit (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is that all improvments happen on Commons. The folks above quoting WP:NOTREPOSITORY are 100% right. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - What potential?  The article title is an explicit statement that this is an image repository.  What would you add to the article Gallery of coins that would not be better off in Coin?  Ditto for the other articles bundled in. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a discussion of each coin and set of coin would be ideal. That doesn't belong in coin which is much more about the idea and history of coins. 68.40.58.255 (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to an article containing a discussion of each coin. But a gallery article isn't the place for it.  For example, we have Albanian lek which covers the Albanian currency including the coins.  That's the place where you would put such discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll buy that. I think a "list of coins of XXXX" would be a good way to do this, where each country (or group of countries) had an entry.  Hobit (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Smerdis, Edward321, DGG, Hobit. "Because they do it as well" is a very good, very strong reason.John Z (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think we should alter WP:NOTREPOSITORY to allow for collections of photographs? -- Explodicle (T/C) 18:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Whenever I hear WP:NOTPAPER tossed around I which to reach for it's collariy, Wikipedia is not toilet paper. It's an unreferenced, disorganized pile of images. Having this all listed on Commons, I could see. Bundling it into articles here is pointless. And oddly enough, I can't find an article anything LIKE this in my World Book, Encyclopedia Brittanica, or Funk and Wagnalls sets of print encyclopedia. It's not a useful article. It hasn't been improved or expanded upon, it's a fair use nightmare, and it isn't encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logical Premise (talk • contribs) 18:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the soft redirect proposal? -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And also, there are whole encyclopedias on coins. That's part of NOTPAPER, specialized encyclopedias.  Being disorganized isn't a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with specialized articles about coins, or I would have nominated things like Coins of the Hungarian forint for deletion. But please, the articles up for deletion (or soft redirection, I have no problem with that) are nothing like that and can never become anything like that, because they are way too broad in scope (imagine the Hungarian article times 200...) and start from a wrong position ("gallery"). If you have to rename and completely rewrite articles (or in this case, write articles), then there is nothing left to save (on Wikipedia) and the articles are better of deleted or soft redirected. There are whole encyclopedias (catalogue raisonnée) for paintings by famous artists: articles on these paintings are perfectly acceptable and should often be encouraged. But a gallery of paintings by Rubens (which obviously has no fair use problems either) should be deleted on sight. We write articles, we don't provide galleries of quotes or images. Fram (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Change to delete AfD shouldn't be for organizational changes, but since there is a good way to organize this that doesn't break WP:NOTREPOSITORY, we should do it that way. No objection to the soft redirect proposal. Hobit (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been an avid proponent of these galleries time and again. I feel they are enclopedic and useful. Unfortunatly, much needed improvements haven't been made. It's most obvious the keeps aren't gonna win this one, therefore the soft redirect move to commons would be the best choice.  Joe   I  18:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral I don't care, this is trivial. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, people are throwing around to many WP:USEFUL's here. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. That is what Commons is for. ViperSnake151 13:59, 2 October 2008 (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.