Review
(criteria) |
 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I am not convinced about the notability of this person. The requirement of "notability" in the English Wikpedia is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I cannot find any such coverage. Martinvl (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)- Support - It's used in an article in fr.wp that consists of a list of the tombs in this cemetery. I don't understand objecting that this _used_ photo is not useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Ikan Kekek: "an article in fr.wp that consists of a list of the tombs in this cemetery" is not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Charles (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Charles, All people in this cemetery are notable. It is a requirement to be inhumated there. This man has an entry in the DHS (Historical Dictionary of Switzerland), which makes an article on him acceptable on Wikipedia, and a street on his name in Geneva. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Yann. Charles, since when did Commons turn into Wikipedia, such that we have to cite non-original research sources to justify the value of a picture? Sorry, friend, but that's absurd. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Yann: Maybe you could write a stub about him in the French Wikipedia - after all your native language is French and the local language in Geneva is French. There is enough information in DHS to create such a stub. Martinvl (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Martinvl: I follow my nominations, so you don't need to ping me. ;o) Yes, I could write an article, but would that change anything to this nomination? Anyway, I don't understand your vote, as quite a lot of VI nominations are much less notable than this. Yet, I don't see you opposing them. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Yann: Writing an article about Albert Vincent would clear up a number of points.
- Your nomination of him in Wikidata is currently contrary to Wikidata rules which state that Wikidata links to Commons Category pages must be backed up by links to other Wikimedia pages - see Wikidata:Notability.
-
- This is not the place to discuss the merits or otherwise of the Wikidata project. Are you willing for me to raise a "request for deletion" of the page in Wikidata where you can debate the page's notability properly? Martinvl (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- You can improve the description of the image that you are submitting as a VI by wikilinking the French text to the French language article.
- Any other users of the image would not be in the position that I was in when I asked myself "Who is Alfred Vincent?" and I was unable to find any links to him in Wikipedia (English or French).
Martinvl (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that the differences between User:Yann and myself have now been cleared up. I wrote a stub article in the French Wikipedia and Yann corrected my grammar. I have also withdrawn my "Oppose" vote. Martinvl (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Martinvl for changing your vote. Since there is no opposition now, do you agree to change the status to "supported"? However the issue is not fondamentally solved: there is no requisitive that an article exists for an image to be promoted VI. It suffices that it is potentially useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Info My original objection came from my inability to find out anything about Alfred Vincent without using Google. Your link in Wikidata was also inappropriate because Wikidata is an index of what already exists in Wikimedia projects, not what might exist. In addiiton, the VI rules state "There should be a full and informative description of what the image depicts, along with any relevant auxiliary information." I have long advocated that the phrase "along with any relevant auxiliary information" means that the Commons description should either link to Wikipedia, or where this is not possible, should be properly referenced. Martinvl (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
