Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parliament house centenary flag (Australia)

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 redirect to Flag of Australia#Parliament house centenary flag. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament house centenary flag (Australia)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N. The subject of the article is one of the many (hundreds?) of Australian flags to have been flown over the Australian Parliament House. There isn't a great deal of interest in individual Australian flags, and this is no exception. Almost all of the few sources about this particular flag given in the article are minor stories in regional Queensland newspapers. The article creator is a SPA, who is likely to have an undisclosed conflict of interest with the obscure and now rather fringe Australian Flag Society - the article was also some extent a WP:COATRACK to present a positive account of this organisation minus their fundamentalist religious views, as is covered in the article on the organisation (I've removed this from this article). The article creator has been making similar edits to the article on the Society. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A group of Christians are surely free to get together and form a flag society. But their religious views (which they are hardly trying to hide) are a different thing to their custodianship of a national treasure. 03:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

A group? I have seen no evidence of a group. Got a list of members? HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This facebook page (www.facebook.com/Australian.Flag.Society) of theirs seems pretty lively by the standards of Australian loyalist organisations and their offshoots with nigh on 3,800 subscribers. I must admit as a real flag buff I've enjoyed following their feed on social media. Always informative. Always controversial. Aussieflagfan (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's just a flag like any other Australian flag. Nothing special about it: same design, but big. Is there a point to redirecting it to Flag of Australia? It could rate a passing mention there. It's not even the flag in the picture accompanying the article. (Ah, Parliament House, Canberra: now there's a structure that makes a statement. Unfortunately that statement is, "THIS BUILDING WAS DESIGNED IN THE 1980s!!!!") --Shirt58 (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some folks would be surprised how many people in Queensland know about this flag. Because according to my research not only have many of those articles in regional newspapers dating back to 2001 been widely syndicated. It's been on the national TV news and featured in the major Brisbane daily the Courier Mail. If it's been getting recent headlines such as "Iconic flag tours Warwick" <https://www.warwickdailynews.com.au/news/iconic-flag-to-tour-warwick/3215346/> I would submit that it's time for its own wikipedia entry. This article was proposed and accepted. Aussieflagfan (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines are easy to generate in small regional newspapers by providing them with press releases. I have done it myself. Convince me that didn't happen. Nothing else you claim is sourced. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what if they did? They probably even paid some firm to send out their press releases even. That's what keeps them one step ahead of their loyalist rivals mate. Aussieflagfan (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the citation for the Courier Mail article: Annelie Hailes, 'Huge flag for a big country', Courier Mail, 4 September 2009, p. 33. And the fact is that it's not easy to get quality publicity for Australian National Flag Day at all. Most of those Australian National Flag Association state branches can't seem to manage it from year to year. It's all been the Australian Flag Society recently. Because it's amazing how often these over sized things capture the public imagination. You'll be glad to know I've even seen discussion on the flag society facebook page that the custodians will now start asking famous Australians to add their signature to the headband of this specimen. I imagine that will help with future publicity indeed.

Aussieflagfan (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. That's not a citation.

2. Criticising "rival" bodies in not an acceptable strategy. In fact, it highlights that this is really more about your organisation, rather than this particular flag.

3. You are now saying that the important thing about this flag is its size, not its history.

4. Facebook content is generally fairly pointless for proving anything.

5. Claiming that people are being asked to do something (but haven't yet) proves nothing at all.

6. You final sentence demonstrates that your goal is more about publicising the flag (and therefore making money?) than the glory of the flag itself. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is spokespersons for other loyal societies don't get half anywhere near that sort of publicity for their flag day events. This flag has been getting headlines ever since Flag Day 2002 and it doesn't appear to be letting up with the most recent one being "Iconic flag to tour Warwick". If enough time goes by I've got a sneaking suspicion there's a certain inevitability about this article. Like it or not this is one of the most well known Australian flags of them all: you yourself even know about it now. According to my research it hasn't just been featured in the Courier Mail and the Queensland national news in 2009. It was on Win TV news in Canberra the first year it was paraded in 2002 and Prime TV regional news the following year. And after 16 years of this you really wonder why flag buffs like me are at that point where they are requesting a wikipedia article on the subject? One of the things I'm having trouble coming to grips with is that on the other hand I've seen wikipedia articles on here about rival Australian flag designs that 24 million Australians have never heard of before and they never will. Like what's that all about?

Aussieflagfan (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting the impression that this is really about some undocumented war you think you personally are involved in with other people trying to promote the flag. This is simply not the place. And I still suspect that material that has appeared in regional newspapers (perhaps even in city media) is based more on your press releases than on true investigative journalism. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Courier Mail is the major Brisbane daily. And the Canberra Times is the major Canberra daily. Apart from that the other articles are from regional newspapers but were widely syndicated as a simple google search can reveal. Let me tell you what I did to find all those articles. I sent the flag society a message on facebook and asked for a list of all newspaper articles to do with their parliament house centenary flag. And then I went and looked up the newest ones on the internet and the older ones on microfilm at my nearest state library. So that's not original research as such anyway. And really if you haven't sighted all of this material yourself why are you even here contributing your expertise? Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is primarily about the quality of articles on Wikipedia. I too am interested in the Australian flag, and the extreme statements made at times by those who have opinions on its importance. These, at times, tend to end up in our articles, and shouldn't. I have a fair knowledge of vexillology, stronger than many but probably not as strong as yours. Seeing a new editor on the scene, especially one with an obvious POV built into their user name, also attracts my attention. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Flag of Australia - I disagree that there is nothing special about this flag. It was the flag that flew over Parliament House 100 years to the day after ~~Federation~~ the first flag flew over the first parliament. Saying it's nothing special is like saying there is nothing special about the flag that Neil Armstrong planted on the moon. In 83 years, when a flag flies over parliament on the 200th anniversary, it may not be so special but for now it is. (Note that Flag of Australia#Centenary Flag existed well before the creator of this article started editing.) However, I don't see that it meets the notability requirements so the relevant content should be merged and the article subsequently redirected to maintain the page history. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well how about we do that for now then? Merge what can be merged with the Centenary flags section of the Flag of Australia article. Then if the tradition of the parliament house centenary flag continues we can revisit the need for a separate article another day. I'd have to say though I can tell you for a fact that already more folks know about this flag than some of these rival Australian flag designs you see on wikipedia that 24 million Australians have never ever heard of and never will either. Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable at all about it, apart from the fact that a very strange "organisation" owns it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing something is not a national treasure doesn't make it so. How miserly of you mate. Aussieflagfan (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the topic here. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the mainstream LNP is actually going to implement some of these things this organisation is calling for though mate (https://www.sbs.com.au/news/cormann-backs-dutton-s-proposal-for-us-style-loyalty-pledge-in-schools). Some of their leaders have paid homage to this very special flag we are here talking about in fact. Aussieflagfan (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about a flag, not an organisation, or a loyalty pledge. It's no surprise that right wing politicians want to play the patriotism card. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True. But I don't want to hear the flag society is a fringe organisation or doesn't exist anymore though. Elizabeth Kwan even mentioned them in her 2005 Flag and Nation and that's basically the seminal work on the Australian flag. You just don't seem happy for them. Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - largely per Nick-D. Not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - If there's going to be some party poopers how about we just merge what can be merged with the Centenary flags section of the Flag of Australia article at this stage? Then if the tradition does continue let's just see where it's all at in five years time. Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2018 (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.