Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag of the Donetsk People's Republic


 * 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. The consensus appears to be in favor of deletion; better points were made by the individuals arguing for deletion. Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  03:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Flag of the Donetsk People's Republic

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources indicating that the flag is notable on its own. Martin Berka (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Polish speaker running wild to delete anything that is anti-Maidan, anti-NATO? POV-pusher. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The flag is symbol of the new republic, and it is well known. The deletionist and Ukraine breakup denialist just attempts to change history, but it will not work. QuackDoctor (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Ukraine breakup denialist"....that's a new one --Львівське (говорити) 05:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Obvious notability. I have seen it many times in electronic media. Just because it has not yet received coverage in books does not mean its not notable. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You have seen it in the media yes but do they describe the flag or are they talking about the situation? Not everything that has or will ever exist gets a mention on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the media presented this flag and explained that millions of people are ready to die for it, while it may cause a nuclear conflict. I guess it makes it notable.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's actually the specific flag that is likely to start a war, but the tension between Russians and Ukrainians and the action of outside agitators. Unless the specific flag has magic properties to incite belligerence, in which case, it certainly would be notable if that was reliably referenced. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Straw man fallacy. Flags of course do not have magic properties, nor I stated that. If you don't believe this flag is notable you can easily test it. Just wave it in Kiev on Maydan, or try to burn it in the center of Novoazovsk, Krasnoarmeisk,... --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You said You "guess" it makes it notable? Here on Wikipedia we use sources to establish notability, anyone can declare something to be notable, without thirs party sources to back it up however the claim is baseless. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You misinterpreted my position. I "guess" that it is notable because it is so much covered by the sources. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But none of the sources describe or talk about the flag so how would you expand on the article here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A simple google search has thousands of hits. I think I gave a fairly clear reason for my position, and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect me to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

*Keep symbol of an organization and has far use per {Non-free logo}, and under sharealike I see no reason to delete it from the Commons.--Львівське (говорити) 02:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The flag has been used and shown in media but does not appear notable on it's own. Where is the in depth coverage describing the flag or it's meaning for example? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete, not notable. QuackDR., stop making personal attacks please.--75* 00:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Knowledgekid87. No assertion of own notability. Information can otherwise be expressed in the main article. § DDima 01:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not about the file, but about the article, commons has a different deletion policy altogether that has nothing to do with the English Wikipedia AfD process. TheMesquito (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The file page is here: File:Flag of the Donetsk People's Republic.svg if this article is deleted then it will have no effect on the picture being used anywhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait, then why is the flag not "notable" enough to be used on its corresponding article? The flag itself is notable in its own right for the flag raisings that have occured:    --Львівське (говорити) 04:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete No sources that is notable by itself and could be expressed in main article. TheMesquito (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand This article needs to be expanded to standard, yes, but I don't see that it isn't notable. On the contrary. 23 editor (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a saying, actions speak louder than words, can you show how it is notable rather than just saying it is? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete my original vote thought this was for the image file in the commons, didn't realize there was an article on the flag. I think this may fall under being not notable enough to warrant an article on the flag itself, if the 4 URLs I posted above don't suffice. The flag should be sufficiently described on the DPR article, since there probably isn't much info to make an article with anyway. --Львівське (говорити) 05:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand The subject is notable enough for a wikipedia article, though it should be expanded to explain the history and symbolism of the flag, using relevant sources. Vladimir  (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What sources? The ones mentioned above tell nothing about the flag other than it was raised. If you were to add to the article right now what would it be with sourced info that relates to the flag? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you cannot see the sources, then you probably should stay away from voting. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep it's more important than Flag of the Bangsamoro Republik. 3bdulelah (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how with reliable sources? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Every flag used that has been seen by more than 10000 people is notable. Can this nonsense nomination be met with sanction to the nominator? ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No as no-one has been able to counter the argument made by the nominator. As for flags that have been seen by more than 10,000 people does the Flag of Sealand count? That has no article you notice and like yours is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Blabla. The flag has been noted as evidenced by multiple articles and videos. Things that have been noted, are note-able. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I'm ultimately leaning towards a delete vote. I honestly believed that this would be more notable, but I have been unable to find articles about the flag itself, only its use in ongoing events. (Just to be thorough, I also ran the names of some recently adopted flags, such as the flags of Libya and South Sudan, through Google. Both searches brought up many reliable sources about the flags themselves). I would suggest a merge, but the article only states the coloring of the flag and the fact that it resembles the Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic flag. These facts are uncited and were likely derived from the author looking at the flag. I'm ultimately voting delete, but I'd be more than willing to change my vote if anyone can find any reliable sources on the flag or present a compelling argument for another outcome. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think this page is noteable enough for Wikipedia Dudel250 (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Donetsk People's Republic. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Note - even if none of the text in the current article can be saved, there is citable information about where the flag has been used. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * This entity, this "republic", does not exist in the way that other countries exists. What we have is couple of hundred activists who have taken over some buildings--what existence there is as a subject is the material of newspapers, blogs, and tweets, not of an encyclopedia. It's what, a month old, and we already have a flag for which we need an article? What we have here, of course, is wiki-activism. Rich Farmbrough's suggestion is just fine: of course there is information we can cite, but let's not pretend that having such information means that we actually have something tangible, viable, and lasting. So merge it--and see how long we'll need that redirect. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I honestly don't even see a reason why this should be considered notable, as the there is barely even a republic out there, let alone a need for a flag article. I can see a reason for merging this if people see fit, but there is no need to have this article here as is. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 06:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOTE yes the organisation that it is a symbol of may be noteable through news and media but the flag itself does not appear to be. being seen by large numbers (10,000) does not lead to it being noteable - for example the sections of scouting throughout the United Kingdowm have specific designs of flags for each section. These are seen by potentially hundreds of thousands of people each year at various events and copied in print and other media at these events, this does not confer notability onto the organisations flags and as such shouldnt confer notability onto this flag in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amortias (talk • contribs) 12:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep & Improve per above, Not the most perfect article but not something worth deleting neither imho. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  16:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again nobody has been able to provide any sources showing how the flag is notable on it's own. To the people who want to improve the article: Why haven't you done so while this AfD is in process? Actions speak louder than words and the burdon lies with those who want to keep this article to provide the sources needed, otherwise it sounds like a WP:ILIKEIT argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep & Improve - especially now after the republic passed a vote and declared independence I think this is indeed notable. And we have flags of entities not even close to the same independence of this republic. And yes otherstuffexists but it would be wrong to delete this article just because of the fact that it is a hot topic right now. Tensions are high.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again no sources have been found to show it's stand alone notability nor has the article seen any improvement for almost 2 weeks now. The fact is that no sources prove this passes WP:N so your argument saying "I think it is" and "It would be wrong" both sound like WP:ILIKEIT as well as WP:OTHERSTUFF. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is 13th comment written by Knowledgekid87 here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not directed at you though, all of my comments are replies to other's comments. It just seems like a-lot because not a-lot of people are discussing here at the AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.