Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photos and interactive media on Che Guevara


 * 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   speedy delete per WP:CSD and Redthoreau's "delete away" comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Photos and interactive media on Che Guevara

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete a good example of what an article here should not be: this is a list of some photos and videos of Che; while Che may be iconic, and we have our fair share of Che articles and even a category - a partial list of websites where we can gaze on his face or various iconic artwork depicting him is really not the basis for an encyclopedic article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. These links were initially part of the external links for the Che Guevara article itself. They were moved to a seperate list during the FAR process to consolidate the article and save space. This is not a seperate article, as much as it is a compliment to the Che Guevara article itself. He is a notable subject, and there is a large amount of media related to his life/images etc. Your pov on the man and thus bias is irrelevant to the existence of the article, and your dislike of seeing his face is not sufficient enough rationale to delete articles about him.   Red thoreau  (talk) RT 02:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also Carlos, you did not follow any of the steps of WP:BEFORE and hastily just added a "drive by" delete tag with no discussion whatsoever.   Red thoreau  (talk) RT 02:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete This linkfarm needs to go. Wikipedia is not Google (or in this case Google Images). L0b0t (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a LIST ... and several editors/admins stated that instead of having the external links on the Che Guevara article itself, that it would be better to use a seperate list. Similar links to these are at the bottoms of most wiki pages. The only difference here is that these do not clutter up the main article page. It is unreal that with all of the "cruft" and quite frankly un-notable "crap" on wikipedia i.e. "Underwater basket weaving by Nuns in 12th century Romania" that a list of links and images on a widely known historical figure would be considered cruft.   Red thoreau  (talk) RT 03:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) --- Reasons for deletion --- WP:DEL ??? - Copyright infringement - Patent nonsense or gibberish - Vandalism that is not correctable - Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) - Hoax articles (but not articles describing a notable hoax) - Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia - Content forks (unless a merge or redirect is appropriate) - Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources - Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed - Articles about newly-coined words or terms (i.e. neologisms) not supported by reliable sources - Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) - Articles which breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons and are not correctable - Inflammatory redirects - Redundant templates - Categories representing overcategorization - Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic - Inappropriate user pages - Any other use of article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace. '''Which of these above reasons do you believe the current article meets? I see none.''' And without any, the deletion tag can justifiably be removed. Red thoreau (talk) RT 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia articles are not collections of external links. Deor (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Redthoreau, you forgot to include the first sentence from that section of WP:DEL which reads as follows: "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following...". I would posit, however, that the 6th reason listed, "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" covers this article quite nicely. The question, I think, is what purpose is served by an article that essentially duplicates a Google Images search? If there were too many EL's in the Che article, then they should be deleted, not forked out into a whole new page full of them. L0b0t (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. The fine print "and anything else I think of". Then why have the stipulations in the first place? I didn't even want a seperate article at first, but other editors stated that FA's weren't supposed to have external links listed and thus a separate page would be prudent. As such I increased the number of links assuming that since it was its own article, that there wouldn't be any harm of making a longer list. Now a few people swing in from nowhere and claim that the list is to big or unnecessary and should be removed. To me it is an example of "busy bodiness" and editors looking for stuff to "remove" rather than seeking out ways to improve Wikipedia through additions --- or address the mountains upon mountains of crap that is worthy of speedy deletion under the actual stipulations.   Red thoreau  (talk) RT 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete WP:NOTLINK kind of sums this article and AFD up. Nothing more to it, really. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 05:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry you feel that way mate. WP:NOTLINK and WP:DEL seem like more than "fine print" to me but to each their own.  You are correct about EL's and FA's, more info may be found here: WP:EL.  In fact, El even says the following: "Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links....".  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Could there be a more perfect example of "Wikipedia is not a collections of external links" NOTLINK -- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well this is futile. Delete Away. I'll move some of the links to various appropriate pages instead.   Red thoreau  (talk) RT 04:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per all. Maxamegalon2000 05:17, 28 May 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.