Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unofficial 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 03:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial flags

[Hide this box]New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks sources and may involve original research. 日期20220626 (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

user:Ghren has proposed the deletion of the article on the Chinese Wikipedia for the same reason, and the Chinese Wikipedia article is translated from the English Wikipedia article. If anyone can find reliable sources, please let me know, as this might keep of the article on the Chinese Wikipedia as well. 日期20220626 (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify. Seems like a dictionary definition, despite examples of it at the bottom. Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - It seems like a useful article to me, but it does lack sources. Plus, it violates WP:SOURCES. We truly don't know if the information in the article is true or not, and one of the whole concepts of editing Wikipedia is to always have sources. Geko72290 (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 00:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I also feel it deserves to be blown up and redone. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, probably. If that's the case, community members will decide. Geko72290 (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 00:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. I have heard the expression used, but I am not a source in this field. BD2412 T 01:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify While the article isnt in the best shape, this does seem somewhat useful to have.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Politics, and Geography. Skynxnex (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has been around since 2005 so I'm not sure what draftifying is supposed to do. I don't believe this is a notable topic. Sure, people can make up their own flags or use them even without official adoption by a government entity, but that doesn't mean we need an article on it. At best a few sentences in Flag. Reywas92^Talk 14:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying is supposed to move the article to draftspace as an AfC submission. Brachy08 _(Talk) 22:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol I know what it means, I just don't think giving it a little longer in draftspace is actually going to result in a better article, especially if 18 years hasn't... I mean if someone really wants coverage of this topic, I don't think this is even a good starting point and they'd be better off starting from scratch or in another page. Reywas92^Talk 01:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete It's a dictdef and examples, and it's not even clear that it's a single coherent idea. Mangoe (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I saw this last night but waited to ivote. I first thought about sending it to article rescue but decided to wait for others to weigh in. I think sending the article to draft is a good option. If it is not improved it will be deleted in 6 months. So there is no harm in draftifying. Lightburst (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who among you suggesting draftification is going to work on the article if that is done? The original author hasn't done any real editing in over a decade, and their last participation was to get a block (for uploading non-free material, specifically, flags) lifted. I question whether I would trust them to work on this article, but it makes no difference: they aren't going to do so. Which of you is going to take their place? I don't see pushing this off into a draft unless someone is going to feel the obligation or whatever to finish it. Mangoe (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete as not an encyclopaedic topic. We have Category:Unofficial flags that could be used to populate a list article, as well as plenty of standalone articles about individually notable unofficial flags, like Doug flag, Flag of Antarctica, Jolly Roger, Boxing kangaroo, etc. I think Flag of Northern Ireland is a section redirect to a well-sourced notable subject. This article does a very weak attempt at introducing the idea of unofficial flags and would need to be rewritten entirely.
All the sources I've been able to find about unofficial flags tend to place them in context, like a political context of separatism, independence, or resistance; or a sociological context like group solidarity (sport events, pride parades, families of prisoners of war, etc). This article doesn't talk about any of the historical, political, or sociological reasons an unofficial flag might find popular usage. Meanwhile, it dips into recreational vexillology by including flag designs "that have been published".
I could see the possibility of an article about the psychological benefits of unsanctioned flags, or the art of modern flag design, or the historical use of unofficial flags in different contexts, or the history of failed flag proposals, but the article as it stands is too broad to be a single topic, and too barebones to be a starting point for anything more encyclopaedic. Folly Mox (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting, although it seems to be more of a loosely-defined dictionary definition made up by the article's initial creator rather than an actual encyclopedic topic. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.