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.  Sandstein  19:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Tamaulipas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails GNG. No sources no claim of notability. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to State flags of Mexico. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as the best option for state flags. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no sources, original research, deleted as hoax in es.wikipedia. Strakhov (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the flag itself is legitimate -- see the state's web site here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a coat of arms, not a flag. Strakhov (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason claimed there was "Bulo, en México los estados no tienen banderas", that could be translated as "Hoax, Mexican states have no flags". Strakhov (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how literally we read the term "flag". Although most Mexican states do not have an "official" flag, they still use a de facto flag consisting of the state's coat of arms placed on a white background. As to the good folks over at Spanish Wikipedia, they got it wrong even if they adopted your strict reading of "flag". Some Mexican states do have official flags (Jalisco, Quintana Roo, Queretaro and, perhaps, others). Despite this, I've reconsidered my "merge" recommendation. Much of the article's text is largely given over to a description of the coat of arms, and that material is probably better placed in the state's article. So, I'll be striking that recommendation and changing it to "redirect". NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As long as these de facto flags were not described by reliable sources (not even by a laconic line in an official bulletin)... I'm not sure whether they are flags or not, but I'm very sure about them being non enciclopedic content. And when someone writes things that turn to be not true or highly tendentious... often kind of an hoax too. Anyways, in this case at least there is a law entitled "Ley sobre el Escudo y el Himno de Tamaulipas" (coat of arms and anthem) where a few words about a flag are written, but only as "una modalidad de representación del escudo", not a symbol of the state itself. Strakhov (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the law of course is a primary source which does not support the notability, only the existence, of the flag.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to State flags of Mexico (per reasons just given). NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Mexican I can affirm that the State of Tamaulipas has no flag, you will not find reliable sources regarding this. States in México tend to present the shield on a banner, but not a single case the people or their Government recognize as a flag. This article is a complete hoax. This article and 170 more created by Marrovi have been deleted in Wikipedia in Spanish, mainly by be hoaxes or primary sources, see here. The same problems have been repeated in the German and Italian versions. We have almost five months reviewing his articles, I recommend to make a comprehensive review of his contributions.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. No one here is recommending that the article be kept. As to the question of 'delete' vs. 'redirect' (or 'merge'), consider the following -- a reader can search for Flag of (any U.S. state) or Flag of (any Canadian province) and be taken to an article. But what happens if the reader searches for Flag of (a Mexican state)? For the most part, they'll simply be told that the page doesn't exist. But with a redirect to State flags of Mexico, the reader will learn, in the target article's first sentence, that most Mexican states do not have official flags. This in itself is encyclopedic knowledge that would not be provided by a generic "page does not exist" message. I also note that there is a broad benefit in treating the Mexican states in a manner that is consistent with our treatment of U.S. states and Canadian provinces. And there is no downside to giving Mexico that consistent treatment -- as the saying goes, "redirects are cheap".

As to the specific question of Tamaulipas, Strakhov has already pointed out the ambiguous status of its "flag". Yes, it is defined in the state law as a coat of arms "in the form of a flag". But that law also goes on to provide the physical specifications that one normally sees when a law does defines an official flag. This ambiguous status in discussed (with references) in the article State flags of Mexico. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Then... delete the article first, create a redirect afterwards. Digging article's history should not give bad ideas. :) Strakhov (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Anyways, "State flags of Mexico" itself also seems kinda original research to me, but since I'm not acquainted with English Wikipedia guidelines about lists and all that stuff (and that article is not in discussion, so far), I won't push forward with it.[reply]

• Comment: I'm sorry, but I do not agree, redirect Flag of Tamaulipas to State flags of Mexico stills being misleading information. The shield on a banner is not a de facto flag and you will not find reliable sources claiming otherwise. It's only a practical way to present the shield in public events, no one placed it on the buildings or schools. In México there are 3 or 4 States that have flag and the only two correct items in this article are the flag of Jalisco and Quintana Roo. But, as Strakhov says, I am not acquainted about English Wikipedia policies, but I would think that the first two pillars apply in all Wikipedias, by that of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" or "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial". I think that Flag of Tamaulipas should be deleted and removed from State flags of Mexico. If somebody searches for Flag of Tamaulipas they must be told that the page doesn't exist because the flag doesn't exist. I am bringing here the information that I have, my only interest is the project, you will be who take the final decision. Regards.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rosymonterrey Thank you for your comments, both here and on my talk page. I'll briefly address the two points you just raised. First, there is indeed a reliable source that describes the coat of arms as a flag. It's the state law that sets forth the physical specifications and protocols that apply when the coat of arms is used "en su modalidad la Bandera" (in "flag mode"). The state law is referenced in the target article, and the reference specifies the particular sections of the law that describe its use as a flag. And because the web link for the law is the state government's own web site, I can't imagine a more authoritative or reliable reference. Second, galleries of flags are not "indiscriminate collections of information". Such galleries routinely appear in print encyclopedias and there are quite a few gallery articles on Wikipedia. You can see a list of them at Category:Lists and galleries of flags. Some of them are featured lists and there is nothing "indiscriminate" about any of them. NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm willing to suggest Delete if this is all entirely questionable. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 and 2. That's what is gonna happen sooner or later if a clean break is not made. Proudful POV pushers pushing their little tiny nation-state-region-list fantasies, filling Wikipedia with tendentious and biased and plain false information. I don't know what kind of phallacy I incurred, but it sounds legit to me. :) Tamaulipas does not have a "state flag"? Well, then... let it be that way. Period. I'd suggest content's creator (Marrovi)... writing about things that they really exist. In an enciclopedic manner. And for that... reliable sources giving context are needed. Still waiting. Mixing state-flags with flags-"belonging"-to-unflagged-states... seems to me like an unencyclopedic mess. It often occurs when we are not dealing with reliable sources. Strakhov (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that a list of imaginary flags must be considered a indiscriminate collection of information. When somebody show me a reliable source that claims that the State of Tamaulipas has a real flag, I will change my opinion. At this time, if you want to keep visible misinformation, I can't do anything. I felt really bad for not warning you about the hundreds of fake articles, now I did it. This is one of them, keep it in English Wikipedia is your decision. Best regards.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2016 (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.