Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT-autism Pride flag


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

LGBT-autism Pride flag

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An unremarkable flag by an organization which lacks a Wikipedia article. As someone who himself is autistic, nominating this article for deletion is kind of disappointing, but searches for the flag (either the "Autism pride flag" or the "LGBT-Autism Pride flag") and the organization which promotes it fail to find any coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:MADEUP. Blythwood (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems too soon for a Wikipedia page. The article states the design was only introduced February 2016 (two weeks ago?) and thats seems to have generated no coverage of it. there's nothing in Google image search. Maybe if it takes off in the future and is reported upon it will warrant its own entry on Wikipedia, but at the moment I say Delete or Redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupsbunch (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. No sources have been provided other than a press release and Facebook page both from the organization that introduced this flag. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pernom. May be in future this flag will be notable, but not yet Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform to promote every brand new thing that somebody happens to come up with. If something's just two or three weeks old, and its own creators' own primary sourced content about it is all we can come up with for referencing, then it's just not a thing that qualifies for an article yet. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it ever really takes off as a thing that reliable sources actually cover. Bearcat (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice, per Bearcat. Bazj (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2016 (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.