Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flags of counties of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of counties of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The vast majority of these have no source, no context, and aren't even important enough to be discussed in the article on the county itself. Thankfully the list is very incomplete, as the US has more than 3000 counties apparently. Fram (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You overlook the actual content, and highlight only the disclaimer. You overlook that the material is also sourced with links to the sources. This is a relatively obscure subject, down to a micro level. And finding books, newspapers or magazines on each flag is inherently problematical.
To be sure, there is always hostility and suspicion of any other wiki project. E.g., Find a grave, which is still a reliable source on finding places of internment. For other facts there are problems, but for gravesites not so much. There is a certain irony in all this.
But you are entitled to your own opinion on this wikipedia page. 7&6=thirteen () 18:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per RSP Find a Grave is not generally reliable because it is user generated. As far a I know this is the case for all user generated sources (WP:USG) whether it's us or others (see literally any other user generated source on WP:RSP).
In terms of the sources listed at Flags of the world for the Michigan counties, some [2] [3] seem to cite sources, others [4] [5] don't give any. [6] cites some information to Wikipedia. I simply don't see these as useful sources as we can't trust that they have got it right. They might, they might not, we can't be sure without checking the original source, which at that point we would just cite.
I am asking because adding information from Flags of the World just doesn't seem very substantial and doesn't bring it up to much more then a gallery. Cakelot1 (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian It is a fact. Your distinction doesn't change the problem. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag lists that should have been on Commons The link speaks for itself. Your gratuitous and unwarranted claim of canvassed at the deletion page is b.s. I have no illusions that this posting will change the outcome. No one showed up. But you can spread your poison. 7&6=thirteen () 14:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that 11 participants is "no one showed up" is being rather plainly economical with the truth. There was neither A) a need to ask for more participation with a non-neutral message; nor B) post it to a specific partisan group (speaking of "no illusions", I have absolutely no illusions about the Article Retention Squad). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one from WP:ARS. (Except sleepy amphbian, who hangs out at ARS, and showed up to vote/support/discuss delete – take your pick). You choose to misquote and misunderstand. Deliberately or not. 'Dona nobis pacem indeed. 7&6=thirteen () 15:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The gallery of flags is actually just an listcruft, too little encyclopedic value. 140.213.132.86 (talk / contribs) 14:07, 4 May 2022 (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.