Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of armed forces flags


 * 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   Transwiki to Commons.. Tone 14:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Gallery of armed forces flags

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY, should be on Commons.  — fetch ·  comms   23:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Rename to "List of...". The content is an encyclopedic staple. See List of Canadian flags for a model, and Articles for deletion/List of Canadian flags for a recent comparable AfD.  Ty  02:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So we should remove all the non-free images in this list also? That's all very well with me, but this is still an image gallery without much supporting text. In this list rename, would it be reformatted, or what?  — fetch ·  comms   20:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD is not about the inclusion of non-free images in the article; it's about whether we should keep or delete the article. The discussion about the article content can take place in the normal fashion on the article talk page and elsewhere. However, the presence of non-free images is a strong argument for not moving to Commons, as Commons does not allow non-free images, so by default does not have the potential to provide a full reference treatment of this subject. Wikipedia does allow non-free images, when they are important for our encyclopedic and educative mandate. Treatment of the article in the "list rename" can be found at WP:LIST and in numerous list articles, including WP:FL.  Ty  23:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does allow non-free content, but only on a case-by-case basis. In this case, it's unlikely that the use of so non-free flags here passes the NFCC.  — fetch ·  comms   01:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is, as I have said, a standard editing matter, not an AfD one.  Ty  17:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Commons Commons does galleries. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So it would be OK if it was called List of armed forces flags, as Commons doesn't do lists?  Ty  23:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A rose by any other name... Stifle (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to the Commons. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Commons, which is a much better fit for this material. Tim Song (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  — Ty  17:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The statement of "transwiki to commons" is not a substantial argument. It needs to be shown why this material is more suitable for Commons and should not be part of an encyclopedia. There seems to be an assumption that Wikipedia does not host such material, but this is not true. The recent debate Articles for deletion/Gallery of sovereign-state flags resulted in keep. As Stifle has confirmed, this could with equal validity be termed List of armed forces flags. A list of flags can be a featured list, as with List of Polish flags.  I agree the article is not suitable as it stands, but it has the basis of being a suitable article with appropriate textual commentary. I note that, until I just added it, the AfD was not listed at the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  It is also categorised as I, "Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic".  There needs to be more time for input from editors interested in the topic, who might be prepared to work on the article, or alternatively give sound reasons why this coverage is not appropriate, e.g. members of WikiProject Military history, but who so far probably have not even seen the AfD.  Ty  18:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Commons. This is indeed a substantial argument, and Ty misrepresents the guidelines on images in disparaging it. There have to be very clear reasons to keep galleries on wikipedia, and AfDs such as Articles for deletion/Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery and Articles for deletion/Field Army insignia of the United States Army show that this type of ill-assorted list without commentary do not rightfully have a place. If Ty is looking for input from the Milhisters who watch such deletion debates, my belief would be that any consensus would be against retention. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Transwiki to Commons" isn't an argument; it's a conclusion, just as "keep" and "delete" are; all of them need to be supported by an argument. I have stated above "the article is not suitable as it stands", but suggested that the topic itself is notable and suitable for Wikipedia "with appropriate textual commentary". Your argument seems to be that we should judge it as it now appears, not as it could be if properly edited. This is not normally a rationale for deletion. If you mean that Milhisters would not see a gallery or list of armed forces flags, even if well organised and with appropriate sourced commentary, as being valid, then that would be an argument to transwiki. If that is the case, I would consider their opinion to carry considerable weight, but the rationale for that should be explained. That rationale cannot simply be that we do not host these types of articles, as clearly we do, and they can, like List of Polish flags, reach featured status.  Ty  05:01, 12 June 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.