Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flags of active autonomist and secessionist movements


 * 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 nothing, or rather, there is nothing to do. The page is already a soft redirect. — Kurykh  18:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Flags of active autonomist and secessionist movements

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Gallery of flags; transwikied to the Wikimedia Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just want to ask why we should move the page to Wikimedia Commons and delete the page in wikipedia. Is there a policy guild? Should we also move all the gallery like Gallery of sovereign state coats of arms to Wikimedia Commons? I just find it strange if some galleries of national flags are at Wikimedia Commons and some are still at wikipedia. Salt 09:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am working on that goal. Anyways, I have put up pages similar to this before on AFD, because Wikipedia is general not used for galleries. But, the reason why some still exist because I am looking at specific pages and see what should be kept here and what should be moved to the Comnmons. I hate to do batch nominations, since many times I participated in those, they tend to be screwed up. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is the sort of information that is best presented in a gallery format, and most print encyclopedias I know of have plates collecting images of this sort, without a great deal of accompaniment, en masse.  Because Wikipedia is still not paper, we can go somewhat deeper in our coverage of flags, but this sort of presentation is traditional. - 14:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep We have a Gallery of maritime flags that I use extensively for reference in naval articles. Why is this different?  Flags are not easily described verbally, and they're used because they're a concise, easily recognized symbol that appears in infoboxes and templates all over Wikipedia. They're presented in exactly this sort of format in print encyclopedias and almanacs. These are symbols, not images, and shouldn't be shunted off to commons.   Acroterion  (talk)  23:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OTHERCRAPEXISTS! - really are we sure this content can't be stored at commons so that other projects may make use of these images? There are more language wikis out there :) ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 05:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By all means, it can and should be stored on Commons. However, the article itself should remain accessible via 'Pedia, referencing Commons.    Acroterion  (talk)  19:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It can be done, using Commons:Flags_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements. That is what we did to the Template for the list of flags when I moved stuff to the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.   Acroterion  (talk)  03:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And this is why the AFD is being done; pages like this cannot qualify for speedy deletion (once the AFD is done, then it can be speedied) so this is mainly just a formal procedure, like the others that I have done. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep; I looked around and couldnt see any consensus/discussion for moving galleries from *.wikipedia.org to commons.wikipedia.org. Galleries on commons are primarily for helping people of any language find an image they are after, whereas galleries created on the various wikipedias are intended for viewing purposes and are in a single language with interwiki links to other languages.  The Commons Project scope appears to be primarily to function as a respository: "Wikimedia Commons is a freely licensed media file repository. .... Wikimedia Commons project aim is also not creating a wiki - it only uses a wiki in order to create a free media repository.  So if a part of the wiki technology does not meet our goals, we change the technology, not the goal. We don't stick to wiki purism."   While this gallery is not the most important gallery I have seen on Wikipedia, this gallery is way too topical to be appropriate for commons, as its criteria for inclusion is not useful to assist people find the images. John Vandenberg 10:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The main driving force is WP:NOT, which is that if the page is pure collection of images with little to no article text, then it should be shifted to the Commons. As for why there was no discussion is that, from my dealings with Wikipedia, you just cannot move everything to the Commons with one swoop and mass-nominations always fail. So that is why I am doing this one by one. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, but commons is only a repository, so galleries there are be solely for image finding purposes. I think this gallery is intended to be more than that.  I appreciate that you are only nominating one gallery this time (and a gallery of marginal usefulness at that) but I am not convinced that commons even wants this gallery, in which case we would need to discuss whether Wikipedia wants this gallery, which is what responses to this nomination have discussed. John Vandenberg 01:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Commons have not told me to stop yet; I admin the place! Anyways, galleries were currency images, audio files, paintings and other things exist at the Commons. We have galleries on various painters, showing all of their work, while Wikipedia shows an example of what they did. I moved other galleries there before in the past month and other than a few complaints here, pretty much not many either cared or had an issue. As I told others, this nomination is only here for procedure. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - a3. Short article with no words. Just put up a soft redirect to commons. The Evil Spartan 19:44, 11 July 2007 (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.