Deletion of Gallery of Sistine Chapel ceiling (2nd nomination)

Comment: Serves as an excellent and usefully-organised supplement to the main article.  doesn't apply here at all, since the article is hardly a "mere collection" lacking text. I agree with Amadajm that if the article were called a "List", it never would have been nominated for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTREPOSITORY)

Comment: This is an invaluable art historical resource, a legitimate expansion of this aspect of Sistine Chapel Ceiling per . It is not merely a collection of images but a well-constructed article with commentary. Of necessity it incorporates many images. Images are another (and in this case highly desirable) way of communicating information. If, instead of the images, each one was replaced by text describing it as fully and closely as possible, there would be no notion of deleting the article. It is obviously far better to show the image than attempt the (impossible and ludicrous) description of it in words. There seems to be a widespread devaluation of the image in favour of text on wikipedia. There needs to be a rethink of this attitude
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SUMMARY)

Comment: per |I don't like second AfD nominations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDL)