Commons:Deletion requests/File:New Flag of China (R41 proposal).svg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:New Flag of China (R41 proposal).svg

Commons is not a place to store such private flag proposals. Use Flickr or similar websites. Antemister (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not really what the standing de facto policy has been on Commons. There are many hundreds of "special or fictional" flag images here, and they're not usually deleted just for being "special or fictional" alone, but only if there's some additional aggravating factor (such as being hoaxing or hatemongering). I don't really see what harm this image does -- it's not official, but it doesn't claim to be official, and it's based on well-known historical symbols. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about "original research", but it's been painstakingly explained to you several times already that Commons in fact does not have a "no original research policy". AnonMoos (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 Keep per Anonmoos. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes we have several such flags here, but they are clearly out of scope. A flag designed by the uploader without any source is private artwork, which is out of scope. AnonMoos seems to be the only one here who really wants to keep them here.--Antemister (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As opposed to all the other private artwork we host here? This is an image repository, not Wikipedia. You seem to have a slant. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Antemister -- why did you say that I'm the only one who wanted to keep them right after Fry1989 voted "keep"???? That comes across more as a desperate denial of basic reality than a smooth rhetorical maneuver or effective debating trick. In any case, there are not a "few" special/fictional/unofficially-proposed flags and coats of arms on Commons -- there are in fact hundreds of them here (very possibly thousands), and you've conspicuously failed to show any reason why this file is worse than most of the others (in fact it's not). If you want the standing de facto Commons policy on special/fictional/unofficially-proposed emblems to be changed, then you should really start a discussion on the matter at an appropriate prominent centralized location (such as Village Pump), because sniping at a few semi-randomly chosen individual images with deletion nominations won't really do the job. However, if you do start such a centralized discussion, you would probably be wise not to insist on your own personal interpretation of original research, because that line of argument hasn't led to any useful insight as to what should be kept and not kept on Commons. AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

 Keep In scope. Per others. Tm (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: Yes there are hundreds of such flags. Any of them is out of scope. I'll start a DR on that whole category at some time, once I've gathered some supporters.--Antemister (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't waste your time. You now admit you're on a hunt to get rid of these flags, and as soon as you start that mass DR we'll just quote you here. It's incredibly transparent what you are trying to do and you have been told enough times that Commons does not have such limitations. Get over it and move on. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

@Fry: Yes, I know that I am "on a hunt to get rid of these flags", cleaning COmmons from such strange out of scope images.--Antemister (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You're not cleaning up anything, you're just trying to get rid of things you don't like. I Don't Like It applies. Stop wasting your time and go do something productive, or perhaps Anonmoos and I will have to take your personal bend to a wider forum of discussion. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

 Keep per COM:PS, "by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page on a Wikimedia Foundation project is allowed." File is displayed on User:R-41, the contributor's user page. Rybec (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Kept: FASTILY 08:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:New Flag of China (R41 proposal).svg

I dont know if we make an exception for flags, but this is original art by a currently nonnotable wikimedian, and thus is beyond our scope. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion above? There are many hundreds of proposed / "special or fictional" flag images on Commons, and traditionally they have not usually been deleted just for being "special or fictional" alone, but only if there's some additional aggravating factor (such as being hoaxing or hatemongering)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There are hundreds of such flags - and everyone is one to much. Such fictional flags are out of scope and confusing for users.--Antemister (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think that that's anywhere near the highest priority for improving Commons now. You seem to spend a lot of effort on agitating various pedantical semi-non-issues which have very little effect or results when it comes to improving Commons. P.S. It's spelled "too"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:NPOV has since its first revision given "that flag does not exist" as an example of a dispute that should not be raised on this site. This particular flag is no longer shown on R41's user page, and the files in Category:Special or fictional flags typically aren't especially informative or likely to be reused, in my opinion. Rybec (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment sorry, i missed the above discussion, having not checked the talk page. I disagree that the only mitigating factor should be some inappropriate usage. i tried to get a clearly racist file deleted here, and the ONLY criteria by which it could be deleted was that it was original art by a nonnotable wikipedian (ie someone not known publicly for their artwork), and thus out of scope. no one successfully argued that it could be deleted as hate mongering. Im not going to belabor the point, and I Withdraw my request. The commons has a problem: where do we draw the line with postings of original art? if we are not a free webhosting service, then why is this work here? we also have thousands of images of commercial products whose packaging is under copyright. saying "we have them now" is not a rationale for keeping them. however, this problem will not be solved here, and i guess i dont even want to address it here if there is strong support for keeping such images. PS i thought at first this was a flag proposal from a legitimate source, so i was briefly fooled, and afterwards confused: if an uploader doesnt specifically say in the description of their fictional flag its relation to reality, anyone could assume its a legitimate proposal. I do understand having some personal files uploaded for our user page, though.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks, but I'm not sure how legitimately confusing the image description page can be, when User:R41's username is included in the filename, and template {{Fictitious flag}} is displaying a big red box... AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

 Keep Same as previous DR. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep This is none of anyone's business to tell me what I can or cannot upload here. Have I threatened anyone or agitated for violence? No. Have I produced fraud? No. I clearly indicated that it is a fictional flag. Now if this claim has "withdrawed", why is it still open. CLOSE IT. This is really frustrating. I find the rhetoric by Antemister here to be the most condescending and snotty behaviour that I have ever encountered here. The other users, particularly Fry1989 are completely correct, this is not Wikipedia, but Antemister treats it like Wikipedia and is on some crusade to delete original artwork from here. That is censorship, and I hope he fails in his petty crusade.--R-41 (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Delete self-created artwork, no educational use and is therefore out of COM:SCOPE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LGA (talk • contribs) 22:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

That's nice; however, that traditionally has not been the only thing considered in this particular area. AnonMoos (talk) 10:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

---

kept: While I think that we should get rid of all those fictional flags nominating random flags is not the way to do so. Please start a general discussion about this subject and reach some consensus for deletion concidering these personal artworks. Natuur12 (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:New Flag of China (R41 proposal).svg

Out of COM:SCOPE. This file is no longer used on user pages. 沈澄心✉ 11:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

•  Keep, per previous discussions, in fact I find it kind of odd that this flag, which was previously widely used on user pages, has disappeared from them. This flag is not misleading as it's properly tagged as being a proposal. my issue with the deletion of these false files comes down to two things: 1. (One) Fundamentally, I believe that Wikimedia Commons should be home to all (non-heinous) free media. Free culture isn't just about educational content - it's about making all sorts of intellectual property free to use. It should not be gatekept to a certain type of media. If there were another free media repository out there that was hosting non-educational free media, I would be fine with the Wikimedia Commons closing its doors to somethings. But honestly, we're pretty much all there is, so we have a responsibility to keep free media alive by embracing all of its diversity. 2. (Two) Even without a scope change, I believe that the Wikimedia Commons' "educational purpose" should be interpreted to include cultural and artistic education, not just "the transfer of knowledge". And when I say culture, I mean all culture, not just cultures and subcultures we subjectively label as "worthy". So I oppose these DR's on the basis of my interpretation of this policy—depictions of fantasy and fanart are, broadly speaking, culturally educational. Note how this flags integrates various cultural iconography from Chinese history based on the Five (5) Races Flag.

Of course, the above would be "a broad view" of educational that this flag is "artistically educational", but it's better than a narrow view of the word as there is no policy specifically against these and the topic remains controversial, with most of these DR's being closed based on the personal beliefs of the closing admin regarding the interpretation of the educational value of such images. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per nomination. As it is now, such images are generally considered out of scope. Commons does not serve as a repository for any and all free image. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 00:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)