Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of banknotes (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 of the debate was Keep. Yanksox ^(talk) 05:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason the page should be deleted

• 1. Most of these images exist in galleries within their respective main articles.
• 2. Some of the images are copyrighted and use in this article does not meet fair use qualifications under U.S. copyright law.
• 3. Wikipedia is not a repository of images, which is all this "article" is.
  Nv8200p talk 19:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of banknotes was two weeks ago, and it was an near-unanimous keep. Reason 1 is irrelevant because WP is not a paper encyclopedia, and the point of such galleries on one page is for easy compare and contrast (See every other "Gallery of" page on Wikipedia) which cannot happen if the gallery could only be presented as a scattershot of other pages. Reason 2 only justifies the removal of individual images from the page, not the whole page. Reason 3 was already dealt with on the previous AfD, and would necessitate the deletion of the whole genre of "Gallery of" pages on wikipedia. Of course it's not an article in of itself. It's an extension of a main article at a separate ___location, which Wikipedia policy permits. hateless 20:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, but it also isn't an image gallery. This is an image gallery. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:NOT does not have the word "gallery" anywhere in it. What's prohibited is "Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. " My argument is that the text does not necessarily need to be in the same article. hateless 17:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong speedy keep Are you kidding? This was very, very, very strongly kept not even TWO WEEKS AGO! Why don't we just AfD every single article that has ever survived AfD? I honestly don't think I need any other rationale for my vote. -- Kicking222 22:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listed less than two weeks ago and kept then. If there's a statute of limitations on time between when something can be AFD'ed, then the has to be speedy kept. BoojiBoy 23:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, this CAN be speedily kept per WP:SK: "An article can be speedily kept ONLY if one of the following holds:... 6. a recent AfD on the article has concluded within the prior six months as a consensus keep." This was absolutely a consensus keep, and it was absolutely within the past six months. -- Kicking222 02:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per previous AFD. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AFD which closed less than a week ago. ScottW 03:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fg2 13:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete countries have been arbitrarily chosen, there are many images of banknotes on commons. why not include Seychelles or Indonesian banknotes or any of the other bills? if this article were complete it would be enormous. --Astrokey44 15:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Add those countries in! -- Kicking222 21:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not require that articles be complete at creation. Wikipedia enables editors to add to articles. So, "countries have been arbitrarily chosen" should be an invitation to add more countries and make the article better, not a reason to delete it. Fg2 13:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Kicking222, Hateless; if incomplete per Astrokey44, it should be expanded. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:11, 16 June 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.