Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transgender 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   no consensus. Discounting the opinion of the blocked sock יום יפהיום יפה.  Sandstein  05:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Transgender Pride flag

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Like Genderqueer Flag, the subject of this article does not seem to meet general notability criteria. The links given in the article are not from reliable sources and the concept of the flag seems to be self-published with no third party review.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   01:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete You can buy a T-shirt with the flag on it, but no one is talking about it in reliable sources. Per general notability guidelines, doesn't qualify for inclusion at this time.  No RS to verify.  Dennis Brown (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep More sources added, including The Telegraph. Moreover, the Telegraph does not only speak of the flag, it establishes use of the flag by the Brighton city council, which answers the Nom's concerns that this is not verifiable as not being made up (" concept of the flag seems to be self-published with no third party review"). Anarchangel (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria. --יום יפה (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep this one but delete the Genderqueer one, There are reliable sources and i will see if I can add some more. Jnast1 (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Anarchangel's Telegraph source, I'd also grant some verifiability to Autumn Sandeen's piece here, she's an arguably notable (but as yet-unarticled) trans activist and reliable enough personally on the existence of such a flag, ditto, notability of the flag and some verification it's standard from the CBS source here, etc. --joe deckertalk to me 15:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I dispute that Anarchangel's Telegraph source is supporting evidence for WP:N. The source describes a place which critics are saying flys "logos on bedsheets" and the article is about whether it is okay to fly flags with little recognition, and not a review of the transgender flag which is mentioned among these.
 * The CBS source shows a picture of the flag but says nothing about it. I would guess that they got their public domain picture from Wikipedia, because not many other sites distribute these things with clear legal licensing.
 * The glbtq.com source seems to not pass WP:RS and even if it did, the text there seems copied from a mix of Wikipedia and the flag creator's self-published blog about the flag.
 * Finally Autumn Sandeen's article comes from a reliable source and she herself may be notable, but this is irrelevant as it only proves the existence of the flag and not that the flag has a history which meets WP:N. The flag is a product and I do not doubt that it exists and that some consumers are using it, but WP requires verifiable evidence of notability and the flag's use by a single activist or a even a few activists is not sufficient to meet notability criteria.  I would suggest that if this flag is being used by a number of organizations then it is notable.  Otherwise, keeping the flag here is only serving to advertise it to people like those who are being cited in some of these sources. I still say delete for lack of indication of notability.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   04:49, 11 April 2011 (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.