Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stock photography archives
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:39Z
List of stock photography archives[edit]
- List of stock photography archives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fails;
- Wikipedia is not a repository of links
- Wikipedia is not a directory
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Wikipedia articles should not exist only to link to services websites offer.--Hu12 11:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Directory of external links. MER-C 13:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ~ EdBoy[p]\[m]/[c] 16:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - lists like this are surplus to requirements. Moreschi Deletion! 20:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a repository of links. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, WP:NOT#DIR, & listcruft. SkierRMH 02:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is much more than a repository of external links or a directory. Precisely the opposite of an indiscriminate collection of information. Useful. Could be a good candidate for a featured list. Fg2 07:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Supplements the article stock photography well. Wikipedia should have at least some examples of stock photography collections. The Transhumanist 07:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete external link spam magnet [1] --Hu12 13:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm moving this to a private photography wiki. But I think Wikipedia should link to that private site somehow because this database is the only place on the entire Internets where a person can find this information. I can see that it doesn't fit in Wikipedia and it is a spam magnet. --cda 16:28, 21 December 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.