Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flags of micronations

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; disregarding the accusations of bad-faith towards the nom, which do not actually pertain to whether the article should be kept or not, the arguments for delete outweigh those for keep. Krimpet (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags of micronations

Flags of micronations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This should really have been bundled with the "coats of arms" article; however, as I've only just discovered this article it's too late to add it. My rationale for deletion is the same as my extended rationale provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of micronations; please read that debate before commenting here. kingboyk 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Related announcement: Skeleton page for guidelines/policy in this area: Wikipedia:Micronations. --kingboyk 17:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I'm just spitballing here, but isn't it redundant to have the flag and coat of arms on separate pages, when they are listed in each micronation's main article? Is there any reason for having them on here twice? They're micronations after all, they aren't even recognized. Hell, I can start my own if I want. --Cyrus Andiron 15:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fake flags from fake countries. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per {{db-nonsense}} Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. That most micronations themselves deserve a Wikipedia article is debatable enough - that we need a gallery of their flags seems baffling. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• week keep based on no consensus at related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of micronations —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rebent (talk • contribs).
• Delete. The article is even more specialized and on an even more tenuous topic than say, Toilets in Japan. Though we do have pages for thumbs of flags/coats of arms for real countries, these aren't "real" in the same way. I DO agree with having the List of micronations, though, since it is a legitimate and encyclopedic topic. This however is not. —ScouterSig 19:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have grave doubts about even the existence of master articles for these "micronations", and as for their "Coats of Arms"... Where are the secondary sources that these flags exist? - fchd 19:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete what's next Flags of Federation planets? Carlossuarez46 19:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the above votes are all full of dismissive language about the legitimacy of the countries, when what's at issue is whether an index to them should exist. We have hundreds of articles about things that aren't true, because they still were worth writing about. Micronations aren't recognized as states, but we still consider them worth writing about for articles. Why not offer an index to their common symbology? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable flags from non-nations. Edison 23:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The items are restricted to "nations" which have been talked about sufficiently to have WP articles, and have a flag as part of the article. If it were compiled indiscriminately, it wouldn't be a sound article, but as it exists, I think it is. It's encyclopedic=something that people would reasonably expect to find in an encyclopedia. DGG 04:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment But this AfD is not about the articles for the tinpot mini-"nations" themselves, it is about an article which groups together their flags. Even though I think the articles about Sealand etc. should be deleted, I respect their sourcing and the consensus to keep. Where is the required secondary sourcing that these flags exist, or the need to have a gallery page of them? - fchd 11:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Spurious nomination by editor on a mission to expunge content not to his personal taste from Wikipedia. --Gene_poole 07:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You're on a mission to get blocked if you keep accusing me of bad faith. I've seen it from you so many times: somebody comes along and attempts to clean up micronation articles and along comes the owner Gene Poole, with accusations of vandalism, bad faith and (I'm waiting for this one) sockpuppetry. The micronations articles are going to be decrufted and brought into line with Wikipedia policies whether you like it or not. Specifically, I am on a mission - to remove original research and fancruft. --kingboyk 11:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Kingboyk, AFD is rather specifically per its policy not a replacement for article cleanup procedures. It's clear you do have a bee somewhere unfortunate; if you actually want to clean stuff up, starting with the policy (good) and talk pages discussions (not started yet, for the most part) are the necessary prior steps. Georgewilliamherbert 16:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I believe the article should be deleted. Some others agree with me. Here is the place to discuss it. I don't want it "cleaned up", I want it deleted as unencyclopedic, trivial, copyvio etc etc. And, yes, I have a bee in my bonnet alright: that a small group of editors want to inflict this garbage on Wikipedia in defiance of our policies and guidelines. --kingboyk 17:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The only "defiance of policy" is a disagreement about notability, for which a real policy is the only solution. For a long time, Gene's unofficial policy was the only thing (and please, if you think Gene's a nutter inclusionist, look at the cruft he and I and others have been fighting to keep out all these years). Your policy you just started largely is based on Gene's. Where on earth do you come up with this sudden push of deletions being reasonable? Georgewilliamherbert 17:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I'll be working on this until I've finished the category; then I will move on to the next thing I find. Something totally unrelated, hopefully. I don't think Gene is an "inclusionist nutter" at all. I think your small group can't see the woods for the trees - you see deletion debates or the removal of material as some sort of attack; and you are happy to present all micronations in the same format regardless of their legitimacy. Look at this, which was acceptable to Gene but totally non-neutral, and this, which tells it as the sources do. We shouldn't have been presenting that scam as anything other than a scam. We shouldn't be presenting micronations as countries. We must stick to the prevalent view from the reliable sources. Incidentally, the policy I started isn't "mine"; I'd hoped we could work together on it and indeed Gene has edited it today. --kingboyk 17:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
            • You couldn't wait until after there was a policy to start randomly deleting things, and claim you intend to do it to the whole category, and think we're unreasonable? I have no problem presenting frauds as such, but fraudulent micronations are still micronations. They usually aren't notable as frauds; they are notable within the scope of micronations and should be treated as such, including describing what they were proposing to do, even if it's believed that they had no true intent to do that. You're cherrypicking sources to replace micronation related info with pure fraud info. That's not NPOV or RS. Georgewilliamherbert 17:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Stop with the accusations please. I used the sources on the New Utopia article that Gene had left when he last edited it! By all means you go through them again and see what I left out that was cited in multiple sources. (Clue: Not a lot). "they are notable within the scope of micronations" - so? This isn't MicronationPedia, it's a general encyclopedia. --kingboyk 17:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
                • • It's not a lotofthingsPedia, but we cover just about everything. The fact that you started work on a notability guideline for Micronations makes my case here. You seem to admit that they should be covered if they meet the criteria. The criteria you used seem to be the ones Gene's been informally proposing we use for years, and what several of us use to filter out true cruft and stuff made up in a day. What's the problem? Georgewilliamherbert 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
                    • I started with his criteria, as a courtesy. That doesn't mean I agree with it (there's some good points there, but it needed work imho). However, please discuss this at WT:MICRONAT if it's still a live concern, thanks. (It may not be a live concern as that page got tagged as rejected). --kingboyk 13:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, highly not encyclopedic, borderline WP:NFT, and gallery of trivia. >Radiant< 12:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Most of the entries are plainly notable. Delete the few that aren't, perhaps, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The article is useful. PubliusFL 14:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - How are any of the flags of these micronations "plainly notable"? - fchd 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • None? --kingboyk 17:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I meant the micronations are plainly notable (a couple may not be, and the flags of those micronations should be deleted). If the micronations themselves are notable, and the designs of their flags are verifiable, I think a list of this type is appropriate. Similarly, I don't think we need multiple non-trivial sources specifically on the subject of the flag of Zulia (one of Venezuela's 23 states). If Zulia itself is notable, and we can verify what Zulia's flag is, I think it's appropriate to include Zulia's flag on List of flags. YMMV. PubliusFL 19:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep same reasons as the coats of arms. If the subjects of the articles are notable, features such as flags, coats of arms, etc. in a list are as well. Georgewilliamherbert 16:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Non sequitur. >Radiant< 08:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Alas, the closing admin on the coats of arms deletion debate obviously didn't think the community held that view, as the article was deleted. --kingboyk 13:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Given that Coats of arms of micronations was wrongly deleted by a trigger-happy admin when there was no consensus justifying that decision (8 to delete, 7 to keep does not a "consensus to delete" make), your argument holds no water. You would do well not to perpetrate porkies of this nature. --Gene_poole 09:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, and sanction nominator - the nominator is nominating in bad faith edits in his quest to redefine micronations to suit a personal POV. This is a bad faith nomination and should be speedily closed, but in case it's not, please look at the case. Most micronations on this list are not things made up in school as he claims and as has stupidly been asserted to and agreed to by other users, who haven't done their research and evaluated how significant some of these have been for the countries from which they seceded - the Hutt River Principality and Sealand have been major constitutional and legal battles with Australia and England respectively, for example,- they are well documented phenomenon in political geography, history and politics, and their flags are a notable and interesting part of that. If there's something that is made up, get rid of that, but nominating the whole list is quite ridiculous and not on. I would be happy to merge this to List of micronations along with the respective coats of arms and details on each micronation, but that should be done in the correct fashion - not in a mass bad faith edit as is being done here. JRG 14:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please refrain from targetting me and stick to the nomination. If this and other nominations were in bad faith there wouldn't be all this debate, with well-respected editors on both sides. Your keep rationale seems to be a version of WP:ILIKEIT, and if you can't justify with references to policies and guidelines why this should be kept when the coat of arms article was deleted your !vote should be discounted. --kingboyk 14:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I see no reason why a small (50px or so) flag could be added to the list of micronations page—but this page still needs to go, as I do not believe it quite fits the term 'encyclopedic' and 'notable' by itself. —ScouterSig 14:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I quite agree. That would be a sensible solution. Keep an eye on the copyright notices though, some of the images rely on fair use claims and it's probably not fair use to have them in any list or gallery type article. --kingboyk 14:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Flags are, I would think, by their own nature copyrighted to their creator or the sovereign state concerned - there's no way you could get around that; you could always draw your own, I suppose. JRG 00:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer mate, but: I don't think there's copyright in old flags of "real" countries, the same may apply to historical micronations (especially if the artist is long deceased). Coats of arms generally seem to be copyright (see {{seal}}). Some of these micronations are of course recent, private entities, and copyright undeniably applies to their flags and coats of arms unless they have specifically released them into the public domain or under a free licence. Copyright doesn't have to be claimed, it's automatic. Creating your own copy doesn't help, that's likely to be a "derivative work" and copyright to the original artist/micronation too. In summary, you'll have to proceed on a case by case basis: some can be used in a list, some can't. --kingboyk 14:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per DGG above. Lankiveil 04:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Arbitrary break

• Comment the second sentence of the article is nonsensical: "This is not intended as a list of all micronation flags; only those flags the actual physical existence of which can be verified photographically or through other third-party historical sources should be listed here." I believe it means that there had to have been a cloth-version of the flag to make it onto the page; htough perhaps the sentence's author meant that the micronation had to be notable. While most wikiarticles are subject to having at least one bad sentence... This article has only TWO sentences total, and this second sentence is a description of what the article is! —ScouterSig 04:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the sentence in the Queen's English, and it's meaning is clear as crystal. Unless there's documentary or photographic evidence that a fabric flag of the documented design has actually physically existed in the real world, then don't list it. --Gene_poole 09:12, 12 May 2007 (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.