Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Africa Red Ensign

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa Red Ensign

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

Largely duplicative of Flag of South Africa#History. Generally, historical flags are covered in a section of the Flag of X article. The deletion discussion for Flag of South Africa (1928–1994) reached a consensus that a flag can have a separate article when it is independently notable and has separate, contemporary relevance (as with the current use of that flag by certain sociopolitical factions). But the Red Ensign does not meet these criteria. Ibadibam (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:GNG. There are sufficient reliable 3rd party sources to support the existence of this page. And actually historical flags of countries often get their own pages, but that is a WP:OTHER argument, thus is irrelevant here. Per WP:NOPAGE, the red ensign can be better understood with this separate page. Given that the info in the Flag of South Africa page is mostly unsourced. To include this article in the FOSA page would violate WP:UNDUE as it would give even more coverage to the historical flags than it would to the actual subject it s supposed to be covering. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The C of E and link to this from the main SA flags page. This page is much better sourced and extensive than the section it's said to duplicate. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flag of South Africa#History. Only three of the sources cited look reliable, so I do not accept the subject as generally notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chris troutman: There are more than 3 reliable sources, I have just added two more which I hope should affirm it for your interpretation. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - This nomination is not based on a lack of notability, but based on redundancy per WP:CFORK and WP:PAGEDECIDE, the general consensus on organization of vexillological articles on Wikipedia, and the standard of independent notability for flags put forward by Slashme in the recent AfD. If you would like to retain the sources you have located for this topic, I recommend we instead treat this nomination as a merge to Flag of South Africa. Ibadibam (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not a CFORK as there is no other article that covers this in detail. It is not a POV fork and neitherthe Flag of South Africa page cover the information in detail that it does here in this separate page. But if you want to rely on the OTHER argument, I point out the Flag of the Orange Free State, Flag of Transvaal, Flag of Transkei and Flag of the South African Republic as precedence for flags of short lived colonies or political situations having their own articles. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's definitely not a POV fork, but it is an unnecessary and incomplete split of Flag of South Africa, which makes it a content fork. Given that this flag is historical and sees no new use, I can't imagine there being so much to say about it that can't fit in the extant primary article. The other stuff you raise is different, in that those are the flags of separate, defunct states with no sole successor, and thus no other "Flag of X" articles, whereas this is the historical flag of a state which already has a flag article, which is not yet so long that summary style is called for. Ibadibam (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        How can it be a split when it's bigger with more information and better sourced than the section in the FOSA page? Stands to reason it cannot be a Cfork if its got more than that it's supposedly forking. As for the others, they were all succeeded by either becoming provinces or the Union as a whole. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        What should have been done was to develop this content on the article about South African flags before being spun-off. That's why I'd consider it a CFORK. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep per The C of E's improvements. Incidentally, my argument for deletion does not have to agree with the nominator. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, I didn't mean to undermine your argument. My statement as to the original motivation for nomination was incidental to my response to The C of E. Ibadibam (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article has enough content to stand on its own, with a short version remaining in the Flag of South Africa article. It's clearly a notable topic, because it passes the GNG. It's not a content fork, because it's not presenting a different POV from the main article, and has a narrower scope. --Slashme (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a reasonably well sourced article on a relevant subject. Passes GNG per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 14 September 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.