Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of dependent territory 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   Keep Consensus is that this is clearly encyclopedic. Mike Cline (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Gallery of dependent territory flags

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This has no encyclopedic value. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Cf. List of cultural flags, Flags of formerly independent states, and Flags of active autonomist and secessionist movements. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, it is not unimaginable that it could hold some value. For example, it could be of use for an art student researching typical characteristics of flags of dependent territories. Haavard Ostermann (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And that purpose would be served just as well, if not better, by Commons. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to commons they have gallery pages there, and this can be an interwiki link at the dependent territory article(s). 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for same reasons as Gallery of sovereign-state flags. --RBBrittain (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Traditional paper encyclopedias almost always include lots of flags; for instance, the 1989 World Book Encyclopedia entry for Flag which has 21 pages of galleries of flags.  This speaks clearly to me of its encylopedic value.  ⚐ ⚐ ⚐ Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)  ⚑ ⚑ ⚑
 * Weak delete No evidence of notability of the flags, and a lot of little islands and dependent areas of little importance are included. Edison (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination has a negative value in that it is disruptive. For examples of encyclopedic treatments of this topic, see Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations, The world encyclopedia of flags, etc.  Colonel Warden (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to commons No encyclopedic content. WP:NOTREPOSITORY states: "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons." Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 01:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasonable grouping. That some of  the areas are intrinsically unimportant is hardly relevant to this or any other geographical article. The WorldBook case is illuminating: we include everything other encyclopedias do.    DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:IAR. It is true that "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images", but the argument about the way that other encyclopedias do it is sufficiently strong — I assume that professional encyclopedias wouldn't do something that's unencyclopedic.  Nyttend (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Wiki is not other Encyclopedias. We have a general set of rules that determine how to make a useful Article. The use of galleries should be in keeping with Wikipedia's image use policy. Policy is clear on this topic; the "if, due to its content, a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. We cannot ignore Policy ? I agree that we are WP:NOTPAPER, but even that mentions that "there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done". Galleries of nothing but images do not belong on THIS server. That was the entire reason for the creation of Commons, and why it was made so easy to link to it from all its sister projects. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Edward Vielmetti, Colonel Warden. If it's good enough for a print encyclopedia, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 14:56, 13 March 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.