Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse reports/Gallery

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. There is no consensus in the numbers, I have at 4-4. So on the arguments. It is true that galleries are are not proper articles (although we do have some articles that are basically galleries, we're not supposed to). This point is not really strongly refuted. Yes there a captions for some of the photos, but this makes it little more than a captioned gallery. The other main Keep point made is this is a useful and encyclopedic entity. That may be, but still, it's not really an article. The main article does have a number of good images (some of which are in this gallery). With a link to the Commons gallery, this seems to serve to purpose. Bottom line: we have to hold the line somewhere, and I think the point that Wikipedia articles should not be just collections of images is strong enough that the article should go. Also FWIW slashes are not allowed in article names in the way used here. Herostratus 19:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT clearly states that Wikipedia is not for "Mere Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles" and that describes this supposed article. Should just be a link to the commons gallery [1] in the main article on this topic. --W.marsh 21:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The Photos are a major part of the story. In fact. the story probably would have never come to public attention without the photos. Including the all the photos with the article would be impractical in this case (due to the length of the two pages combined.), None the less, for someone to have as a complete understanding of this story as possible, these photos need to be accessible. I think a reasonable exception to WP:NOT could be made here. Mike McGregor (Can) 23:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't it just be a link to Commons, then? Why does it have to be an article? Articles aren't galleries for a good reason. --W.marsh 01:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This gallery has descriptive captions for a number of the photos, and the photos are extremely important in context of covering the subject. It is far from merely a gallery. Georgewilliamherbert 02:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the photos are already on the main article for Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Perhaps this could be Merged with that cite under a subheading of photos 71.107.82.58 02:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)ratherhaveaheart[reply]

I'm not sure votes from unregistered IPs count in AFD... you may want to log in and cast your vote again... Mike McGregor (Can) 06:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to the closing admin. They generally count unless sockpuppet or meatpuppet abuse is suspected. --W.marsh 14:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not having signed in when I commented I am still a bit green Ratherhaveaheart 18:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT 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, 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. Simple solution, add any relevant pictures in the main article with a link to the Wikicommons gallery page.--Jersey Devil 04:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is plenty more content than just pictures in that gallery. It's not merely a collection. Georgewilliamherbert 05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment yes, it is a mere collection of photographs. Anyone who sees the article can see that it has no content in it except a minority of pictures with captions.--Jersey Devil 22:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided yet, maybe someone can help sway my vote I'm kind of wondering here. Most of the pictures are shock pics. Shock pics show mutiliation and male nudity and this really fits it as a shock pic. Wikipedia doesn't show the goatse picture. Anomo 09:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the fact that the pictures are "shocking" is in and of itself not a reason to delete. Remember that WP:NOT censored. The reason I voted to delete was because WP:NOT a collection of photographs.--Jersey Devil 22:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The photo of the napalmed girl in Vietnam and of the mass graves in the Holocaust are also shocking, but vital for a complete understanding of the events. These photographs are equally vital. --Ben Applegate 09:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Alright, I'm still a little green, too, so let me clarify that I am voting for deletion of the gallery page, not the pictures in the Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse_reports article itself (somebody please correct me if I've got this wrong). Because there are at least ten picures of the torture in that article, already more than enough to illustrate the point, a gallery of every image obtainable certainly is what WP:NOT. Guyanakoolaid 10:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I too think that pictures are a very important part of the history of Abu Ghraib. --Vlad|-> 18:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and it bothers me that you are even considering deleting Igbogirl 17:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.