Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag of Tlaxcala

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 merge to State flags of Mexico. MBisanz ^talk 10:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Tlaxcala[edit]

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

No sources provided (the source depicts the flag but does not discuss or even mention it), GNG not met. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tlaxcala flag is historic Mexican flag, don't a independence movement or secession, this flag is since colonial government [1], now is used for the state government [2] [3].--Marrovi (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is a historic symbol.--Marrovi (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is then there must be sources that describes it as such. It is the article creators job to present those.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's correct. I think it is the job of all participants at AfDs to conduct some basic searches, especially if advocating deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V says otherwise. Noone should create articles for which there are no sources. Now enlighten me on the results of your search. I found one news article published by the Tlaxcala state government that mentions the flag. Can you explain how that mention establishes notability? IN this particular case it may also be worth noting that the creator has been blocked on several other wikipedias for creating hoax articles and articles based on Original research - several of them about state flags of Mexico. I have already removed two paragraphs of original research from the article which had added a source that did not actually support the added content. I have found the same problem in all the other articles that Marrovi has worked on.--·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marrovi is not gonna stop adding original research, hoaxes and his own personal outlandish interpretations until he gets blocked. That's the way it is. History repeats itself. Strakhov (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to the provincial article. I think there is just about enough for it to be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as an extremely low bar for notability. Is there a guideline that I am not familiar with that says that flags are notable if it can only be shown that they actually exist? The requirement for "non-trivial second party coverage" doesnt apply?

I have done a slight edit on this but have left the "Translation" tag. If kept, I would suggest that the closing admin should remove that tag. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to State flags of Mexico. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as this is best considering it's closely connected, and this is still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as sources (or the lack of them) are not able to provide an enciclopedic context about what that flag is (original research). Strakhov (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to State flags of Mexico. Changing my recommendation to "redirect", for the following reason -- 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". NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete. Are flags inherently notable? No. Provincial flags? No, because where to draw a line? A merge to State flags of Mexico just shifts the problem of referencing this, but is acceptable, through without references - can we even be sure this is not a WP:HOAX? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piotrus Just to clarify, the only flags that appear in the article State flags of Mexico are those that have been sourced to a state law. If we have no such source for Tlaxcala, then no flag will appear there. As for the notability of flags, check out Category:Lists and galleries of flags. There are quite a few similar articles. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: Similar just means we may have to AfD them. See WP:OTHERSTUFF for reference. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ... good luck with that. But you might get some resistance from the good folks over at WP:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:28, 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.