Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portraits of Presidents of the United States


 * 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. Clear consensus. Sadads (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Portraits of Presidents of the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Taking to AFD since PROD was contested. This page violates WP:NOTGALLERY, which states Wikipedia is not an image repository, and what we have here is really just a collection of images with some accompanying text. It's better to just place each portrait in their corresponding presidential articles instead of having a page that's only decorative. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:IAR. The article contains a fair amount of encyclopedic information about the topic prior the gallery section, and the page is functional for readers with 4,994 page views in the last thirty days. The article also comes across as expandable. North America1000 01:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You can't just use blatant cop-outs like that. I fail to see any encyclopedic value that can't just be inserted into each President's article instead. View count is also entirely moot as it doesn't demonstrate anything about whether a page is worth keeping. See WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you feel that some content should be merged, why not propose a merge, rather than deletion? My !vote stands. North America1000 02:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be pointless when the images (the only content of any discernible value) are already included in other pages. <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I view the article's prose as having encyclopedic value, as stated in my !vote. North America1000 02:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. This is an official tradition, and has plenty of sources discussing it:
 * "The Tradition of Presidential Portraiture, Explained", Smithsonian Institution
 * "How presidents use their portraits to shape their legacy", Washington Post (subscription required)
 * "Critic's Choice: The Best and Worst Presidential Portraits", The New York Times (subscription required)
 * "The Evolution of the Presidential Portrait", Daily Beast
 * Clarityfiend (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sourcing isn't the concern here; it's the fact that this is nothing more than a decorative collection. <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Trim; this is a notable and encyclopedic topic, but the gallery of presidential portraits violates WP:NOTGALLERY and the History section fails WP:TRIVIA. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The series of official portraits is a perfectly legitimate subject for an article. WP:NOTGALLERY discourages the creation of articles that are "merely collections of ... photographs or media files with no accompanying text", but that does not describe Portraits of Presidents of the United States; if all the images were removed there would remain an article of encyclopedic value. There is no good reason to trim. Ewulp (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Presidential portraiture is a significant topic. There are entire books on the topic. Cbl62 (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Clarityfiend (talk). --IndyNotes (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2018 (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.