Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flags of stateless nations


 * 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   '''Please can you go and discuss this somewhere policy related and come back to AFD when there is a clear view on what the policy should be? I recall my school encyclopedia had a gallery of flags and I'm sure we kept something similar at DRV as being clearly encyclopedic. AFD is not the forum for making policy and that is what is required here. '''. Spartaz Humbug! 03:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Flags of stateless nations

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This article is essentially an image gallery with almost no text content, with original POV judgements about which "nations" should deserve states. Quigley (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The image gallery should be moved to Wikipedia Commons and the rump page deleted.--Christian Lassure (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * comment I stopped the recent PROD of this article and asked the nominator to list all of the Flag and Coat of Arm Gallery articles as one AfD so that the Gallery aspect of these similar articles can be discussed and policy applied equally. Those articles are Gallery of sovereign-state flags,Gallery of dependent territory flags,Flags of unrecognized and partially recognized states,Flags of micronations,Gallery of sovereign state coats of arms,Coats of arms of dependent territories,Coats of arms of unrecognized states. Personally I believe that as Christian Lassure says they should all be moved to Commons including the two articles already deleted, Coats of arms of micronations and Coats of arms of stateless nations however policy is being unfairly targeted at these smaller articles whilst larger are left untouched.
 * On the nominator's assertion that POV judgements are being made on the content, I contend that the UN, US congress , The New Yorker as well as various reliable political and sociological texts are far from POV even if not directly cited in this article. Whilst these three links are for Kurdistan, substantial numbers of research papers from worldwide educational establishments can be found for the other entries as well. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want, you can initiate concurrent deletion discussions on the larger articles. I think the dynamic in a combined discussion would be different, though; as you well know, because for example, proposing the deletion of the micronation flags gallery would probably attract the protestations of micronation enthusiasts, who by sheer force of numbers could at least force a no consensus result regardless of policy. Proposing deletion makes it easier to argue each case on the merits.
 * As for Kurdistan, the UN is not making the designation; the UN is hosting a PDF from a political NGO that is making the judgment, the US congress is not making the judgment; some Congressman is quoting the New Yorker article you include separately into the Congressional Record! And the New Yorker article uses the weasley "some say" that Kurdistan is a "stateless nation"; it is not making that claim itself. It is a term used by political campaigners to advocate for ethnic nationalism and against inclusion in a multi-ethnic state. Naturally, it is contested. Wikipedia should not make that judgment. Quigley (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to initiate the concurrent deletion unless I have to, and I do agree the discussion would be different we may actually get some debate into the encyclopaedic value of these types of article and as per other AfD's likethis the outcome of a bulk delete doesn't have to be a no consensus it can be a combination of deletes, merges, and transwikis. There may be some merit in merging stateless nations with either Micronations or unrecognised states or both - but as a picture gallery all of the articles should reside on commons not in wikipedia. The problem at the moment is that people may support you because it is a Picture Gallery whilst disagreeing with the POV argument, to consistently apply policy we should be consider all of these picture galleries together with each article's merits discussed individually as part of the overall debate.
 * My point with those links was that those organisations are representing those facts and can be reasonably regarded as having fact checked them. The UN refers to stateless Kurds in other places as well (Based on Canadian Government documentation) but we can also take other sources as well "Human geography: landscapes of human activities" By J. Fellmann, A. Getis, J. Getis, "Modernity and the Stateless: The Kurdish Question in Iran (Library of Modern Middle East Studies)" By A. Vali, "Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations" By J. Minahan, "World Politics in the 21st Century" By W. Duncan, B. Jancar-Webster, B. Switky, "The complete idiot's guide to geography" By J. Gonzalez, T.E. Sherer; some of these books also cover Tibet and other stateless nations not yet covered by the article as well. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * move to commons galleries go on commons. 76.66.196.13 (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Commons as Wikipedia is not a repository for images. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  17:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Move to Commons. --Elassint (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2010 (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.