Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of illuminated manuscript images

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 21:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Gallery of illuminated manuscript images, Gallery of Book of Kells pages, Gallery of Vergilius Romanus miniatures

• delete. See an identical discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gallery of pages from the Vienna Dioscurides about the Gallery of pages from the Vienna Dioscurides. Mikkalai 02:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete Move to wikicommons. (by User:Sparkit who forgot to sign. Mikkalai 05:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC))
• Keep Notable pictures. Klonimus 07:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Gallery of Book of Kells pages and Gallery of Vergilius Romanus miniatures. I have made these arguments at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gallery of pages from the Vienna Dioscurides, but I will also make them here. First, I strongly believe that pictures are absolutely essential for understanding art objects. If a particular art object is notable enough for an article then the pictures themselves have encyclopedic value, the only question is how best to present them. the same can be said about individual artist, the best way to understand their works is to see as many images as possible. (See for example the William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery) In my opinion, there are only two viable options: tacking the images onto the end of the article, as has been done for the Codex Aureus of Lorsch, or creating a separate article, as has been done for Gallery of Book of Kells pages and Gallery of Vergilius Romanus miniatures. I believe that the second option is superior because these galleries can contain a very large number of images. Tacking these onto the end of long article such as the Book of Kells can make the pages unwieldy and ugly. Creating a gallery on Commons is not, in my mind, a viable option. First, the most common means of informing a reader of the existence of Commons material, use of the {{Commons|article name}} template, is not particularly useful for a casual reader, they won't know what that little box in the corner means. It is true that a link to a gallery on Commons can be constructed which looks like a regular wiki link, but as this would take a hypothetical casual reader out of Wikipedia, without warning, which at the least would cause confusion. In addition, there is an active discussion on Commons as to whether images should be collected into articles or into categories. At some time a consensus will on Commons may be reached to not have articles, only categories, at which time we would be left without the galleries we need. Finally, Commons is a multilingual wiki. I do not think it would be a good thing to send casual readers to a gallery that is a babel of languages like this one, or even worse, one that has no English text. Dsmdgold 16:37, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I have not voted on Gallery of illuminated manuscript images. Although I created this monster, I have been recently thinking that the same purpose would be better served by creating a Category, Illuminated manuscript images. It would not grieve me to see this go. Dsmdgold 16:41, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, concur very much with Dsmdgold. Categories cannot be annotated, or arranged. Kappa 23:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I think that there should be deletion if there is a commons page and it should be used because syncrhonization of en and commons pages is unlikely to be flawless. I also think there needs to be a specific policy about how the use of the commons so that this issue is settled. I am not sure I understand the article for redundance with commons and en pages unless they aren't released under free licenses. That might be a good reason *shrugs* I just want an official decision so it can dictate my actions... I just stress to anyone working with gallery pages to please help put things to the commons if they are under a license that allows it so that we can help our friends using other languages. gren 00:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KeepCristianChirita 12:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep An excellent companion to any article mentioning the Book of Kells. Visual art's impact and importance should not be ignored in wikipedia.  The Steve  19:16, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.