Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queer Pagan Flag

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. --Core desat 02:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Pagan Flag[edit]

A symbol for GLBT pagans that seems to have been designed by the creator and only substantial contributor to the article. There doesn't appear to be any verifiable evidence that this flag has actually seen use as a notable symbol by any groups, unlike the Rainbow flag and company; the article states that it was "first flown" at a 2006 parade, and the article was first created in early March of that very year. A Google search reveals only 7 unique mentions aside from Wikipedia and mirrors, suggesting that this may be something made up at the pride parade one day. Krimpet (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:COI and because Wikipedia is not for things I made up before a parade one day CitiCat 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:N; never heard of it and cannot find any sources for it. Carlossuarez46 01:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources to establish notability? Delete it. -- Kesh 02:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate info.--Edtropolis 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the LGBT WikiProject talk page. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HangOn. Found one source, an English (and Queer Studies) professor that has the flag on his university website. [1] Most likely doesn't establish notability enough for WP:N, esp as a separate article, since he's not a group. Also agree with possible WP:COI issue as above. However, lets not be hasty. There are Queer Pagans, there should be a flag. Somewhere. Possible include as an external reference in Sexual orientation and Wicca with that source, rather than as a separate article? Becksguy 09:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would be wise to check that this isn't known by some other (more notable) name elsewhere. - perfectblue 13:54, 16 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.