Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of flora (LCRV-picturesEZ) (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 was delete. JForget 23:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of flora (LCRV-picturesEZ)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It has been over three years since the last discussion on these lists, which I think merit another look. Last time around, the discussion centered on these articles' usefulness as a "field guide," but Wikipedia is not a guide. It also seems to be an abuse of the gallery script, see WP:IG. Many species are represented more than once with multiple images. The worst problem appears to be a complete lack of references that these species occur in the area claimed. This is something we usually take care of with categories, e.g. Category:Flora of the Great Basin desert region Rkitko ^(talk) 01:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikimedia Commons, or if already there, delete all, this article was tagged to be copied there. These dont appear to be encyclopedia articles, and i dont think they could be turned into such without renaming and restructuring entirely. no refs doesnt help. some of the target articles dont indicate this is in the plants precise range, so not accurate.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue against page transwiki to Commons. As far as I can tell, all the images are already on Commons, but the galleries would need a slash-and-burn before any transwiki. Like I said above, the same plant is often represented by multiple images, but most worrying is that the Lower Colorado River Valley is a poorly-defined geographical area. These plants may occur in the vicinity. I think it would be much easier if someone, working from a WP:RS, would start anew on a single gallery at Commons where each species only had one picture. I don't think these galleries would be any help in that effort as one could easily just search for the species again on Commons, making better choices than those in these pages. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Image galleries belong on Commons and these images are already categorized over there. Reso lute 01:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia pages should not be "Mere collections of photographs or media files". In my opinion these pages have insufficient encyclopaedic context to be suitable for the project; as has been said above, Commons would be a more appropriate location. Guest9999 (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as Wikipedia is NOT a repository of images. Tavix | Talk 00:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as image galleries. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2010 (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.