Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 18

List of baseball jargon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is important information and needs to be restored. You can't understand baseball without this information. It's the middle of the season. The information cannot be found on the dictionary site. Please restore this important encyclopedic article.

I can't see where any proper discussion concluded that this page or its subsets should, in fact, be deleted. bd2412 T 22:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been in the habit of using these pages in wiki-linking terms frequently used in baseball player articles. It was useful for finding existing articles about some terms and where a full article did not exist, I could link to the appropriate baseball jargon page so the reader has something to refer to if they come across a term they don't know. Now that these pages have been relocated, there are red links in some of the articles I've edited over the past few months. Also, in their new location, the pages now have a ton of red links because they link to articles in the main space. I'd like to see these pages returned to their original location. --Sanfranman59 23:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was speedied because its contents were transwikied to Wiktionary. --Coredesat 00:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It was BADLY transwikied, losing both the internal cross links and quite a number of citations and notes. That was done in a mindless way, not a thoughtful way.35.9.6.175 03:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Doesn't that require an AFD though, to decide if something that's been transwiki'd should be deleted from this project? In the time being I'm creating a soft redirect to Wiktionary as whoever deleted this was lazy and there are a lot of incoming article links still. --W.marsh 01:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Where was this even transwiki'd to? Doesn't seem to be at Wiktionary. Perhaps this was transwiki'd under the rug with a broom... --W.marsh 01:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• At a glance, it looks like maybe 1/3 at best of these actually made it to Wiktionary. So undelete the list until people can be bothered to A) actually transwiki the content and B) have a proper deletion discussion. --W.marsh 02:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see why pages must be deleted after contents are transwikied. Some overlap may be a good thing. What harm is there in having the duplication? The Wikipedia list will have links to Wikipedia articles, the Wiktionary list will have links to Wiktionary definitions. Both lists can link to each other. The only problem I see is that there is more maintenance involved, but certainly that wouldn't be a problem for a subject that is widely covered. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Overturn --☑ SamuelWantman 06:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• It's not just the "parent" List of baseball jargon that was moved. There were pages for terms that begin with each letter of the alphabet. The L page is here (note all the now red links). User:Fram is the one who removed the pages from the main WP space. They did so citing WP:CSD 5. But that item says that the articles should have been discussed at AFD. To my knowledge, they weren't. I had some back and forth with this user on their talk page, but I didn't quite follow how he/she proposed that we fix all of the now broken links. --Sanfranman59 02:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. As someone who invested many hours over the past year or so helping to expand and also to rationalize tha List of Baseball Jargon, I was shocked to discover that it had been eliminated without any discussion. The transwiki process was flawed and not a substitute for the complete list with its documentation and links. This is a valuable glossary, it seems to me, and to remove it abruptly without a full discussion is extremely discouraging, to say the least.--Mack2 03:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Fram was just the admin who did the appropriate thing with the articles tagged {{Db-transwiki}}. No blame belongs there.

The articles can be found by searching the transwiki namespace at:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Search?ns0=1&ns108=1&search=List+of+baseball+jargon&fulltext=Search

I can see 2 AfDs that both ended with "keep". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of baseball jargon (see also Talk:Baseball Slang's 2 afds)

This is a good example of the problem with moving the glossaries to wiktionary. There has been quite a bit of prior debate about whether glossaries belong within Wikipedia or Wiktionary (see Category talk:Glossaries, Talk:List of glossaries, and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not for a start), with many editors believing glossaries play an integral part in a topic's coverage and need to be here to be accessible, and others believing they don't belong here at all (arguing strict WP:NOT#DICT), still others believing they will help give Wiktionary much needed traffic/editors, and probably more perspectives that I don't recall. It's really quite a mess, see more examples such as wikt:Transwiki:Topology glossary, wikt:Appendix:Architectural glossary and wikt:Transwiki:Architectural glossary, or search "glossary" for many more. Neither the appendix or transwiki namespaces are searched by default, which makes everything harder. (I'm personally pro-some-glossaries-at-wikipedia, but I don't really know much about Wiktionary, just that it's not OmegaWiki/Wikidata yet...). That's all the background I can think of offhand (yikes!). :) --Quiddity 04:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• A few points:
  • as Quidddity points out, all the pages have been transwikied, not just some, but they are indeed not that easy to find on Wiktionary if you don't know where to look.
  • A CSD G5 does not need a prior AfD, as you can see from the second point ("alternately") it contains.
  • Many (indeed, most) of the terms in the glossary were not used in any article (e.g., from the more than 70 dicdefs under the S, only one was linked twice from article space, all the others were unlinked). The transwikying has created many redlinks in the glossary articles because these articles were close to a walled garden, very often linking from one to another: however, very few redlinks have been created on Wikipedia: this indicates to me that while these articles may be worthwhile on their own, they are not necessary for the rest of Wikipedia, which means that as dicdefs, they can be just as well on Wiktionary. As e.g. this AfD shows[1], opinions vary wildly about what to do with such articles, and while they shouldn't just be deleted obviously, many people seem to agree that transwikying is perhaps the better option. The articles were transwikied in February already (except two, the V and the Z, which I let be transwikied for consistency), and very little activity had happened on these articles since.
  • If the consensus turns out that they need to be on Wikipedia instead of Wiktionary, I'll have no problem with that, but it is my belief that these are clear dicdefs, and that a list of dicdefs should be treated the same way as an individual dicdef, per WP:NOT. Fram 05:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, jargon does belong on Wiktionary rather than on Wikipedia. If some content was lost in the transwiki, the solution is to add it to wiktionary as well. >Radiant< 08:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That should be done by the people who swept it under the rug, then. It's not my job to clean up after people who deleted content and were lazy. It's still in transwiki limbo apparently and not easy to find on Wiktionary, and poorly organized here. Even if this did qualify under A5 (it doesn't) at least they could have done it cleanly. But there were 2 AFDs that resulted in a keep... consensus really is dead on Wikipedia if stuff like this gets endorsed. --W.marsh 12:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, consensus is dead allright, check out the BLP Arbcom case. But anyway, why didn't A5 not apply? "Alternately, any article that consists of only a dictionary definition, where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded." The transwikification was done like any transwikification towards Wiktionary. If this isn't the correct way, then please complain or stop to wiktionarybot, as it is then doing a bad job. As for the AfD's and consensus: policy trumps consensus, and this violates WP:NOT. If we don't transwiki this to Wiktionary, then why do we even have Wiktionary and the transwiki process? Don't forget the very similar and simultaneous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baseball slang, which resulted in no consensus (perhaps merge or move to wiktionary), or similar unrelated but more recnt AfD's like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surfing terms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of theatre terms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of quality management, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of palindromic phrases in English, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-learning glossary or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local history glossary which show that consensus then was and now is that such articles belong on Wiktionary, not on Wikipedia. So there is clear precedent for a consensus that such articles do not belong on Wikipedia, there is a policy that says so, there is a speedy deletion criterion for it; what more do you want? Fram 13:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • This did not consist of "only a dictionary definition"... it was 27 pages that organized content throughout our baseball articles. Maybe this is a language thing but "a dictionary definition" means one dictionary definition. You didn't even bother checking "what links here" apparently... this was just lazy and nakedly anti-content... as evidenced by the "it's wiktionary's problem now" attitude. --W.marsh 13:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Did you check the "what links here"? I did, for every article in there. I've given the exmaple before, I'll do it again: apart from links between the different baseball jargon articles, the article List of baseball jargon (S) was linked by two articles, Adam Melhuse and Gene Larkin, who both linked to "single". The other 95 entries, from "sabermetrics" to "switch hitter", had no incoming links at all. Pleae, check it out carefully: these pages stood on their won and had very little interaction with the main baseball articles. And the bad thing is that the one term that had incoming links, "single", has its own article, Single (baseball), which means that the two remaining incoming links can be easily changed to better, more precise ones. Similarly, for the "T" page, there was only one incoming link, for Texas leaguer, from Gene Larkin. Surprise: the term is explained in Texas League. The other 24 entries, from "tabelsetter" to "toe the slab", had no incoming entries. The "P" page, sixty dicdefs, no incoming links. In fact, apart from a few examples like the ones above, all other incoming links were from the "see also" type, like here [2], here[3], or here[4]. I have no idea how I was able to remove these pages if I didn't check the "hat links here", but apparently I did. Anyway, as you can see here: Category:Baseball terminology, we still have plenty of articles on Baseball jargon left. Fram 13:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
          • So uh, you checked what linked there but didn't do anything? The pages you mention still link to the jargon list, e.g. Adam Melhuse and there are lots of incoming article links to the top-level page still. --W.marsh 13:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
            • No, I didn't change those links, although I changed some others. I didn't change those pointing to the main article becaue sthey were "lazy links" anyway: you want to explain a word, and you don't check if there is a specific article for it, you don't check if there is a specific entry for it in the jargon pages, no you just link to the main jargon page, and let the interested reader search further. I wonder why all these people who are now debating this deletion because of the many hours of work they put into it didn't make it more useful and didn't check all thes links before, instead of leaving that to the one deleting it. If it wasn't useful at first, it isn't my job to clean up that mess afterwards. Lazy links are now redlinks, so what? Take PFP, where "Pitchers' fielding practice" links to the main baseball jargon article. In the "P" article, I have an explanation of pitcher (which, again, also has it's own article). There is no entry for the full term though, nor for practice or (in the "F" article) for "fielder's practice". There is an entry for fielder, and there are separate articles for six types of fielders (rough count, I haven't checked them thoroughly). So, how would you suggest that I should have changed this bad link after having turned it into a redirect? Fram 14:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Well that's a case where keeping the article around would have solved the problem (by not creating it in the first place)... but you could have created a redirect to Pitcher. --W.marsh 14:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, the right thing seems to have been done, and pretty much in the right way. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn reinstate article pending an actual discussion on how best to present this information. Catchpole 13:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, wiktionary is for individual definitions, not an encyclopedic list. Yes, lists can be encyclopedic. -N 13:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Um The L page listed above seems to have a lot of entries but not many references or citations. Is there a basis for the information in this or was it all original research? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be shocked if there was an original definition or two in there, but by and large they look accurate and could be sourced to books and other sources if needed. At any rate the solution to a few bad items on a list isn't to delete the whole thing. --W.marsh 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as JzG: the right thing seems to have been done. Eusebeus 15:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, there was no discussion, the transwikiing was done poorly, and there are a lot of red links left. All of the deleted pages should be restored until this has gone through a proper discussion. Corvus cornix 18:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Bits and pieces: These glossaries are often "edge-case" issues, by nature subjective. But so are the Lists of basic topics or pages like List of timelines.

There is no obvious/consensus way to deal with these glossaries, but a handful of editors/admins are slowly shunting them piecemeal to Wiktionary. It'd be nice if it were simple, but it's not, and this current solution seems a little lot like sweeping-under-the-rug.

A very rough proposal was to move "word-lists" across (e.g. List of French words of Arabic origin), but leave "glossaries" here (e.g. Glossary of Water polo or List of medieval land terms). There was never a firm reply to this idea though.

It was in policy from March 2004 till October 2006. It had survived two initial discussions (1 and 2), and even this large discussion which is what led to Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Lists of words, but was then removed by dmcdevit despite numerous objections (though with support from at least 3 other admins).

The whole topic kinda needs a broader discussion and think-through. Maybe WP:CENT or VP or something. --Quiddity 19:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn: Corvus is wrong when he says that there was no discussion: there were two AfDs, both of which had consensus to keep, showing that these articles must be more than mere dicdefs. Consensus may not trump policy (but see also WP:IAR), but it sure as hell trumps one person's interpretation of policy. David Mestel^(Talk) 06:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I meant "no discussion prior to the deletion", but I concede your point.  :) Corvus cornix 16:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. There was no concensus to delete; default is keep. There is a project that can work on moving these words to Wiktionary, and they will no doubt signal when this list is no longer valuable and should be deleted. John Vandenberg 07:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, no consensus to delete, useful list, transwiki improperly performed. Deiz talk 13:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• The point is not whether these entries should exist in the encyclopedia. The point is whether their deletion was out of process. They certainly do belong in Wiktionary, but any process of relocation should insure that no redlinks are left behind, and the best way to insure this is to link those terms to the Wiktionary entries as they are made, and not to delete the Wikipedia entries before that. bd2412 T 18:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Such a deletion should be brought to afd. It does not meet any speedy criteria, and it is obviously controversial. --- RockMFR 20:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is controversial (obviously, seeing the above responses :-) ), but it does meet the speedy criterion for transwikied articles. However, a contested speedy can of course be brought to AfD. Fram 07:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, clearly does not meet CSD #A5. There was no AfD with consensus to transwiki (and in fact two with consensus to keep); this was not "only a dictionary defintion" but a glossary of terms of specialized use, which is an appopriate encyclopedic article; and the transwikification was not properly performed. DHowell 09:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Caretaker Gazette (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD1|AFD2)

Article deleted via AFD and salted due to repeated recreation. The publisher attempted a deletion review nomination back in February, but it was quite malformed. I worked on a redraft at User:Garycdunn/The Caretaker Gazette, but never got around to nominating it for review here. The new version is sourced, and I believe it is notable. It also was written by someone without a conflict of interest, but that may not be true of the maintainers. Is it worth including? GRBerry 21:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thing is, at least a couple of those look like they originate with press releases, and none of them is actually a proper treatment of this journal in a mainstream source. We have coverage of its subject matter, coverage of setting up a msall press, but nothing much really about the journal. It's a mom-and-pop outfit, from the website, and it's really hard to find anyone other than the publisher who gives a damn about the article. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete. I think warnings and bans are the best way to deal with COI editors who repeatedly recreate articles without community input. Salting an article should only be used as a last resort. If the new article is not POV and notability is unclear, it should be dealt with through the AfD process. Antonrojo 00:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. And COI articles from COI editors, with no actual evidence of significance, and previously deleted by AfD, they can stay deleted. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Deleting admin statement: I deleted this per G4, I had no idea of the article's merits. I simply saw that it had been deleted two times previously, but I would support undeletion at this time. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 00:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete no reason not to have this in mainspace. Catchpole 13:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I think the subject is too trivial and the previous history makes it potentially a source of COI abuse. Eusebeus 15:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as per AfD2, let the user recreate it cleanly in User space then come back here for discussion. Corvus cornix 18:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  Huh? A userspace draft is linked in the nomination. Is there an issue with that draft? GRBerry 19:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I somehow managed to miss that link. No opinion. Corvus cornix 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete; the draft has sufficient reliable sources over a number of years, and it is apparently a rather unique publication. John Vandenberg 07:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. The new draft is well-sourced and could easily be put in article space. I'm calling for undeletion because the original creators need to be credited with the idea and no doubt with some of the content. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Heh! The originator is the owner, and the current userspace draft is also the owner - who has, in the traditional way, no other contributions to the rpoject other than an article on his magazine and arguing about it. Guy (Help!) 06:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Zelda Classic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was closed after an AfD discussion on the grounds of lack of notability. I agree that the original author poorly cited secondary sources, but assert that these sources do exist; see below. In short, I do not believe the participants in the AfD discussion made a good-faith effort to find secondary sources with which to improve the article, and would like unprotection or undeletion of the article so that the article can be revamped to include these sources, and thereby satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirement.

Here are some sources that would be included to establish notability:
TechTV (the TV clip, not just the web summary) http://www.g4tv.com/screensavers/episodes/3637/Rick_Thorne_5MP_Digital_Cams_WiFi_Dog_Backpack.html
Gaming Today http://news.filefront.com/zelda-classic-free-tribute-to-the-classic-game/
Slashdot http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/26/146238
Electronic Gaming Monthly: "It's a Secret to Everybody". Electronic Gaming Monthly. June 2005.
Acid-Play: http://www.acid-play.com/download/zelda-classic/
The Elderly Gamer: http://xboxmeagain.blogspot.com/2006/08/zelda-classic-8-bit-download-heaven.html

These sources appear to satisfy the notability guideline:
Significant coverage - All of the above sources except Electronics Gaming Monthly describe and review Zelda Classic. EGM's coverage is less lengthy - it is part of a larger article on Zelda 2005 - but includes a description and a screenshot.
Sources - The number of sources listed above seems consistent with the sources in other related Wikipedia articles; see below.
Reliable - EGM and Tech TV in particular are very reputable sources in the TV and print media, respectively. Both are themselves notable and have a Wikipedia page.
Independent of the subject - None of the above sources are affiliated with the Zelda Classic developers or its community.

Below are some similar Wikipedia pages with similar content and with equivalent levels of secondary source coverage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepmania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_source_port
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skulltag
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_V:_Lazarus

I was not aware of the AfD discussion during its voting period, but now that a notability concern has been raised, I wish to improve the article to satisfy Wikipedia requirements, which I believe is possible given the evidence above.
As a final note, I do not have any prior edits. A previous Deletion Review request by a different author was summarily closed because the requester also did not have prior edits. I do not see the possible relevance of such factors. Evouga 20:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: while your request is not unreasonable, the best (and most often successful) approach in cases like this is to go ahead and create the article as a subpage in your userspace (I suggest User:Evouga/Zelda Classic), and then bring the result here for review. I think this is a particularly good idea in this case, to help allay any possible concerns about your lack of experience. If you want, I'm fairly sure an admin would be happy to undelete the article to that location to help get you started. Xtifr _tälk 01:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds entirely reasonable. Could someone please do that for me? Evouga 07:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Jenny Curran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Initial criteria for deletion and redirect was that much of the article was also covered by the plot description for the film Forrest Gump. Since the plot section has been greatly condensed, this is no longer true and most of Jenny's life is not addressed in the Gump article. --T smitts 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Then you should be taking up the matter of the reduced breadth of the plot description on Talk:Forrest Gump. If you want to discuss modifications to the content of that article, its talk page is where you need to be. Indeed, a quick look reveals that there's a section of that talk page where editors have been discussing the plot section since May. This is not a matter for Deletion review. Uncle G 14:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Vorlin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Featured in Portal:Constructed Languages. Prod was deleted. If the Notability of the article is contested, it should be discussed in this Portal talk and/or proposed to merge it into a paragraph of Philosophical language or Engineered language and set a redirect. Deleting it even after Prod was contested and it is featured in the portal looks like admin abuse or bullying; if the community thinks that individual ConLangs do not belong into the wikipedia, this should be voiced in other ways than deletion instead of a contested Prod. A "mergefrom"-Tag was set to Philosophical language and Engineered language; please undelete the article to set a redir and/or preserve the history. 85.181.39.131 12:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, listed at afd, which resulted in an unanimous delete. Adding links to an article does not in any way confer notability, or change the venue of deletion discussions. - Bobet 12:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, denizens of a particular Portal's talk page do not trump AfD. No new arguments presented here, the AfD was unanimous. Corvus cornix 15:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion AfD consensus was quite clear. There is an inherent problem with doing such discussions within a project/portal - The members/regular editors are not in any way impartial. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Baza (language) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Featured in Portal:Constructed Languages, Template:Esperanto and Portal:Esperanto. Prod was deleted. If the Notability of the article is contested, it should be discussed in this Portal talk and/or proposed to merge it into a paragraph of Esperantido and set a redirect. Deleting it even after Prod was contested and it is featured in the portal looks like admin abuse or bullying; if the community thinks that individual Esperantidos do not belong into the wikipedia, this should be voiced in other ways than deletion instead of a contested Prod. A "mergefrom"-Tag was set to Esperanto; please undelete the article to set a redir and/or preserve the history. 85.181.39.131 12:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, listed at afd, which resulted in an unanimous delete. Adding links to an article does not in any way confer notability, or change the venue of deletion discussions. - Bobet 12:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, WikiProjects and Portals do not trump Wikipedia policy on verifiability. The AfD was run properly and was unanimous. No new arguments presented here. Corvus cornix 15:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Gallery of flags with stars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

(1) It was pointed out, but apparently ignored, that this article was part of a system of articles rooted as Gallery of flags by design: When that page grew successively long, its editors decided to factor it into a number of subpages; "Stars" is one of the subpages, not an "indiscriminate collection of information" (unless you think the entire "flags by design" system is "indiscriminate", but then one wonders what "indiscriminate" means here). A decision to delete this article, but to ignore the larger system it is apart of, does not make sense.
(2) Flag galleries are not "mere repositories of links, images, or media files" -- they are carefully structured, illustrated lists that index the copious vexillological information available on Wikipedia. If the objection is somehow to the name of the page ("Gallery of ...), then propose renaming the page. If it's to the use of the gallery tag instead of a one-flag-per-row table, then let's debate how best to graphically display this information. (Though I will note that many distinguished print encyclopedias include flag charts in exactly this format.) If the objection to the article is purely formal, deleting the article rather than reformatting/renaming it seems rather draconian.
(3) Gallery of city flags was recently deleted, but there the question appeared to turn on fair use issues and whether, given that many city flags designs are not in the public domain, such an article could ever be complete. This was referred to as precedence in the deletion of the "Stars" page. But it's not relevant precedence, unless a similar argument about a dearth of usable image files could be made, but just the opposite appears to be the case regarding flags with stars.
(4) Deletion of this page appears to be part of a strategy, endorsed by User:Zscout370, to delete all flag galleries "one at a time". If the deletion of this page is going to be used as establishing precedence for future deletions, and in effect to implement this strategy, this larger strategy should be debated as such, not disguised as individual ad hoc objections to individual articles. ScottMainwaring 05:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)