Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag of Kherson Oblast (Russia)


 * 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 Merged to Flag of Novorossiya by article creator. (non-admin closure) Tartan357 (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Flag of Kherson Oblast (Russia)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Zero reliable sources. The only thing cited is the Kremlin website. Additionally, this should not have been created while Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia) is going strong. Tartan357 (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, History, Politics,  and Russia. Tartan357 (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete It'd make more sense to put this content in a subsection of Flag of Kherson Oblast, or if other editors prefer, at the Flag of Novorossiya article (maybe that article should be renamed "Flags of Russian-occupied Ukraine" article considering there was never such a thing as Novorossiya?) Worth noting that even the flag of Donetsk People's Republic isn't considered notable enough to have its own distinct article. With no secondary sources, this article obviously fails WP:GNG. Even the one source it cites, a page on kremlin.ru, is not primarily about the flag of Russian-occupied Kherson.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 02:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The Kremlin is a reliable source for Russian claims about it's own administrative divisions. There's a de facto policy that flags of governments are inherently notable. Wikipedia doesn't have to acknowledge anything about the truth of Russia's claim to document that they have created an administrative structure and assorted paraphernalia for their claim. There's too many knee-jerk reactions based on taking sides in the war. And for consistency - someone should merge these AfDs if any of the other Russian newly-claimed oblasts has the flag AfD'd. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SIGCOV requires independent, secondary sources to establish notability. Editing 101 here. The Kremlin does not get to unliterally establish notability for propaganda pages. Point me to that policy if it exists. I'll wait. Or is that another "de facto policy", i.e. one that doesn't actually exist? Tartan357 (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd vote keep on an article about Mars Oblast if the Kremlin claimed they were annexing the planet. Show me any first level administrative division of a global power that doesn't have at least a stub page. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Those articles have SIGCOV so they get kept. This one doesn't (at least not in its current state). This is established by sources, not editors voting. This AfD is about a flag, not an administrative division, BTW. Tartan357 (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Flags get covered by vexillogist publications as fast as they get to print. They instantly have multiple independent sources. For notability, sources don't need to be in the article, they just need to exist. If you want to argue about "too soon" because they haven't yet been printed you might as well argue against the sun won't rise in the morning. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But in an AfD on an article, you do have to present those sources once challenged on notability in order to back up your claims regarding that. So, do those vexillology sources exist regarding this flag or were you just speculating? Silver  seren C 05:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We should also consider the fact that the source cited isn't about the flag. I don't just mean it's not primarily about the flag, I mean it's not about it at all. It never mentions it, much less the design or its history, which is the whole point of a vexillology article. The source is simply being cited to indicate that there exists a photo with the flag in it. It's hardly visible in the photo too. Using that source as the basis of this article is arguably original research. But even if there existed a number of decent sources about the flag itself, it'd be hard to justify a standalone article when we have much better target articles where we could describe the flag.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 05:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You also, for AfD, have to claim that those sources do not and will not exist. It's bad faith to nominate an article for deletion simply because the original editor (who appropriately marked it as a stub) jumped the gun on publication. Considering the project has bots that regular make stub articles about governments and their adornment I'm not willing to ding the editor nor delete the article for being early on a foregone eventuality. The nominator is also threatening the original editor that they will be blocked for creating a hoax article when it's clearly not a hoax. It's a valid stub. It's a nomination in bad faith because of partisan views. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "You also, for AfD, have to claim that those sources do not and will not exist." No, that'd be WP:CRYSTAL. Knowing the future is not a prerequisite for AfD. For what it's worth, I did actually look to see if sources about the flag existed. I had no luck no matter how I phrased the search prompt. All I found was Wikimedia content and a Deviantart drawing. If you're arguing the article is notable because it's possible that sources could exist in the future, I'm afraid that's just not how WP:GNG works, and I ask that you consider retracting your many accusations of bad faith and accusations of partisan POV pushing.  Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 05:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - As creator of the page, I have taken this feedback onboard and moved the content to Flag of Novorossiya. I agree with the post above that that page should be renamed. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.