Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic flag

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 keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic flag

Wikipedia is not a repository or image dump. If these flags are free, a suitable gallery could be created at Wikimedia Commons; if they are not free, and I suspect that some are not, they should not be used in a gallery like this anyway. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination is another example about how image policy wonkery messes with the actual purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Print encyclopedias regularly display flags as color plates in an image, without apparent worries about who owns 'em or whether they're free to use. It's just hard to believe that anyone who flies a flag would object to an image in a gallery showing what that flag looks like, so that even the presence of a fair use image in this kind of gallery would generate any legitimate monopoly-franchise issues. I don't question the nominator's good faith - he is doing what he thinks policy suggests we should do - but any policy that would lead anyone to think this page ought to be deleted is broken and interfering with the project of building an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not reject these galleries outright (I consider Flags of Europe an excellent attempt at a comprehensive article covering the flags of Europe) but this article is listing "ethnic flags"- many of them have minimal notability, and there is little article content relating to the flags themselves. I just feel that this is not a legitimate subject for an article, beyond the NFC concerns (which, I feel, add weight to deletion). J Milburn (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just curious which flags you feel are non-notable? I am familiar with 70-80% of these, in many cases from other print or internet sources (or maybe other Wikipedia articles) or personal experience. (BTW, this is the first time I've even seen this article.) — AjaxSmack 03:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which of these flags have been covered in reliable sources? (Note, I've recently removed a large number of them...) J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a good point that the flag images likely can not be uploaded to commons as they are not likely to be PD/CC, so the only place they can be uploaded is as fair use here. As to the inclusion of specific flags in the article, that is another matter. For what it is worth I can not think of any "ethnic" flags off the top of my head. In looking at this version,[1] I see one ethnic flag I recognize, african americans. I would point out that the american indian tribes are sovereign nations, and while they may also be ethnic groups, should not be included, for that reason. If you included all the ethnic groups that were also sovereign nations you would include Italy, France and Spain, for example. Not to mention a hundred other countries. Apteva (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable, encyclopedic and awfully neat (I know I know -- ignore that). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Encyclopedic content. Notable and interesting. --BsayUSD [Talk]π[contribs] 20:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the images does not have any reference:( 245 image with 28 "note" , that 9 of them are in fact one reference Znaimerowski ) ! This page is becoming a place for WP:SOAP.More than that , the word Ethnic is not a clear one and definition of ethnicity is super-flexible: that makes this page prone for non-verifiable and un-encyclopedic content.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; while it may be difficult to identify the best possible inclusion criteria, I don't see a case that it can't be done. Galleries of flags are classic encyclopedic content, while Wikipedia is not paper, that is in my opinion not a reason to exclude content that is typically found in a print encyclopedia. Kusma (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of the problems with sourcing and unclear qualifications for inclusion are valid but the article is a very useful one and is classic encyclopedic content as others have pointed out. — AjaxSmack 03:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very useful content on a little known topic. Content is no different than that which can be found in a paper encyclopedia (if they actually had room for it). Great idea! Scanlan (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2009 (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.