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. W.marsh 22:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not suited for AFD, then I apologize. Anyways, what we got here is a gallery of flags flown by cities across the world. Encyclopedic, yes. Notable, yes. However, the reason why I am choosing this route is that is due to WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files. Many of these images are hosted on the Wikimedia Commons, a sister project of ours. Their main job is to host galleries of images people can find useful. If there is one point I can concede, the list at the Commons, which can be seen at Commons:Gallery_of_city_flags, will be missing images due to them not being transwikied or under a license that cannot be on the Commons (such as fair use). Linking issues can be solved and we have various templates to point others to the Commons. As a vexillologist, as some of you coming here are too, I understand these categorization is important for flags. We have a whole section of our study to classify flags under color, patterns, symbols and lettering. However, I feel the need for this page would be better suited on the Commons than here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pure galleries without encyclopedic comment should be on the Commons only, not on Wikipedia. Kusma (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Commons:Gallery_of_city_flags is a poor substitute for what this article could become: a useful and rich visual index into city flag articles on Wikipedia. I think the Commons page has two major deficiencies. The first Zscout370 mentioned above: due to legal technicalities, it can only be a subset of what can appear here. But perhaps more importantly, it can be no more than a mere repository of images. The captions of the images can't all point to the appropriate articles in the English Wikipedia, can they? I think these caption links are the saving grace; they constitute "encyclopedic comment", in Kusma's terms. (I would not be opposed to pruning the current page of entries that do not have corresponding articles, though.) --ScottMainwaring 06:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the Commons can link to the English Wikipedia articles. The articles would need to be relinked by hand, such as w:Flag of Los Angeles, California, but it can be done (and I will do that). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Non-free images can't be used on Wikipedia in a gallery, either, so we won't really lose information when this is only on the Commons. A link is not encyclopedic comment (our articles are supposed to be standalone and read well even if printed). Kusma (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Galleries of flags are indeed encyclopedic content; most print encyclopedias I have seen contain plates with exactly this sort of information on them, because it is the best way to present it. By all means keep even the flags that do not have their own articles; each of them is a potential article subject, and one of the purposes of lists, as opposed to articles, is to call attention to article subjects that have not yet been written. Finally, wrangling over copyrights here strikes me as a non-issue. I can't imagine any fair use criteria that would allow one of these images to be used elsewhere, but forbid its use in a gallery. We have gallery of sovereign-state flags; this is not significantly different. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think these are excellent points. If lists constitute "encyclopedic content", flag galleries should also qualify, as the type of list most suitable for this kind of content (as demonstrated by many examples in the print world). --ScottMainwaring 17:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference between the lists and galleries we have is many of the lists that I saw (or made), we have blurbs saying what the flags are, when they were used and a description of what they look like. These, on the other hand, are a simple gallery which can easily be done on the Wikimedia Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This really isn't a matter of discussion. It's a matter of policy. Many of these images are fair use ([1][2][3][4][5][6] to identify but a few) and can't be displayed in galleries anyways. There's not much point to a gallery like this that never can be complete. See similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of United Kingdom academic heraldry. --Durin 18:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would not read any policy as forbidding an article such as this. The fair use policy specifically cited in support of the claim that galleries of fair use images are not allowed actually says this:

  "Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable."

  Since the chief distinguishing feature of any flag is its design, gallery presentation of this information is vital to the point of necessity, and not "merely decorative." We are not talking about a gallery of screen captures from a TV show here. Policy does not forbid the existence of this page. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The images are not being discussed in any way, nor is their presentation adding any particular value. This is purely a gallery, and nothing more. We do not permit galleries of fair use images. This has been hashed and rehashed multiple times and is not permitted. I would be well within the bounds of policy to remove every instance of a fair use image from this article as is. But, the point is as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of United Kingdom academic heraldry, the article would be gutted without them. Thus, this article can not hope to be encyclopedic. It's permanently hamstrung. --Durin 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Go ahead; but if you do, go ahead and remove any image that might be fair use from Gallery of sovereign-state flags while you are at it. These deletions might not win you friends, and might well be borderline WP:POINT, but if a perception exists that galleries such as these categorically cannot be allowed, it seems to me that the issue needs to be hashed and rehashed some more until common sense can prevail. I just don't want to be the one that provokes it. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not here to make friends, so it's no concern if my actions result in me not making friends. Sovereign state flags fall under different copyright considerations than the flags on this page. And, removing fair use violations is most emphatically not a violation of WP:POINT as it agrees with our policies. --Durin 21:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Could you please explain why you say "There's not much point to a gallery like this that never can be complete"? First, why do you think it could never be complete -- that it is impossible for image files with appropriate legal status to be produced? Second, even if it isn't complete, isn't an incomplete but substantially notable list (in gallery form) of flags preferrable to none at all? I'm really finding it hard to understand the vehemence of the anti-flag-gallery opinions being expressed here; there seems to be a lot of "all of nothing" reasoning at work. --ScottMainwaring 21:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you propose to create a copyright free replica of a copyrighted work? If this article can not be complete, it's like discussing the Tower of London without being able to discuss its history. The article is permanently hampered by the fair use restrictions. This article can never do what it sets out to do; display city flags from cities around the world. By definition it can never be complete. You might as well take the featured article of today and arbitrarily cut it in half in mid sentence and say it's encyclopedic. --Durin 21:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not proposing anything, just asking a question. It sounds like you are saying that city flags, by their nature, are copyrighted works and (to answer my own question) that it *is* impossible for image files with appropriate legal status to be produced. Is that what you are saying? If so, on what basis? Thanks, --ScottMainwaring 22:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Some, not all, cities protect copyrights on their city flags. We can not reproduce them and claim copyright release. I say this on the basis of copyright law. Similarly, you can not create a replica of the Coca-Cola logo and declare it free of copyright. See derivative work. --Durin 22:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the clarification. I think this raises an important general question: what proportion of a notable category of flags needs to be copyright-free before a gallery-list of such flags makes sense as a Wikipedia article? I might be willing to concede that "city flags" should be deleted under some criterion addressing this question (though your saying "some, but not all" would seem to suggest this category could have "critical copyright-free mass"). But such a criterion would also allow many types of flag galleries to persist, e.g., sovereign state flags, right? --ScottMainwaring 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If all the page is a pure gallery, I would try and move it to the Wikimedia Commons. But I am going to wait until this AFD is finished before I look at the others. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So even if a flag gallery is 100% copyright free, you still want to rid Wikipedia of it? If we leave aside legal/copyright issues, I don't understand the justification for removing illustrations from lists. And if it's the gallery format you object to, vs. a tabular format in which there is only one flag per line, I still don't understand why such formatting issues should carry such weight. At the very least, why wouldn't you advocate conversion to a new format, instead of deletion of the page? --ScottMainwaring 01:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are many lists being created now for flags, mostly based by country and or design. The problem is, that I noticed, is there is a lot of galleries for not just flag related pages, but also for currency. The same issues I am seeing here, I have seen before on the deletion of currency pages. However, if all this page is going to be a gallery, then we should move it to the Commons. But, I just wanted to do it formally by having the AFD instead of just speeding stuff (since I know the Commons have a bug now). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If there are any acceptable-for-Commons images, then move them to Commons. Otherwise, delete this page. (messedrocker • talk) 20:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at least the fair use flags. The rest can just be in an image category. ^(H) 20:33, 5 June 2007 (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.