Template:Did you know nominations/Triangular corner flags in English football


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Triangular corner flags in English football

 * ... that contrary to popular belief, the use of triangular corner flags in English football (pictured) is not a right reserved only for FA Cup winners? Source: New York Times
 * Reviewed: List of Wales international footballers
 * Comment: For 19th May (FA Cup Final)

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 15:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg A fairly interesting hook, but I have concerns about the notability of the topic: only the New York Times article appears to focus specifically on triangular corner flags, while the other sources only mention it in passing as part of wider coverage on the FA Cup. Honestly, I'm not sure if the topic is notable in the first place; I'll have to ask WP:FOOTBALL about this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily governed by WP:FOOTY as it isn't a player, club or league, it comes under WP:GNG. It's a part of English football culture and the sources do put predominant emphasis on the tradition despite the article may not be solely about them. For example, the Telegraph source is stating that AFC Wimbledon used triangle corner flags as they were claiming they were the true successors of Wimbledon and not MK Dons.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering Corner flag itself is not a separate article but a redirect, there might be something wrong with that assessment. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't predominatly about the flags, it is about the tradition and culture behind it.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this topic really isn't notable enough on its own to be worthy of an article, let alone considered for DYK. If there were an article for corner flags in general (which I would discourage), then maybe this would be a valid DYK, but all we have is Football pitch, which is far too big right now for any potential growth to make it eligible as a DYK topic. – PeeJay 09:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Article has been nominated for deletion: see Articles for deletion/Triangular corner flags in English football. If the article is kept, then the nomination can continue. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg AFD closed as keep, this nomination can continue.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 17:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg A merge discussion to Football pitch is currently ongoing: see Talk:Football pitch. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No objection to the objection. This nomination can continue.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to wait for the merge proposal to be finished first before anything else. Right now there's still discussion, and there is still have plenty of time to discuss this before 19 May. With that said, I'm not opposed to another editor doing the eligibility checks, but the final approval should probably be put on hold for now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No further comments after more than a week, consensus is against merging. This can continue and I would ask if we could please get this passed soon.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The C of E, this nomination is on hold until the merge proposal has been closed; it's standard operating procedure here at DYK. Sorry; you'll just have to wait. Please stop requesting a new reviewer while the merge is still open; it cannot pass when a merge proposal is ongoing. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The merge is not still open. The tag has been removed in accordance with the guidelines at MERGE and it hardly seems right to say something that was opened on 18 April can still be running now, especially when consensus is clearly against any merge (AFD wouldn't be kept open this long with this level of opposition).  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The merger discussion is still open; it is controversial enough that you should not be the one doing the close (as you are most definitely involved), and a post was made to it just yesterday. I have reverted your removal of the merger discussion pointer. I have posted a request at WT:DYK that an uninvolved admin, or experienced user, take a look and see if it's ready to close (and also another merge proposal that's been hanging fire for months); I realize that you want this for a specific date two weeks away. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The merge proposal was rejected, so the review can now continue. Can we get this reviewed in time for saturday now please?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 15:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article meets all the requirements: new enough, long enough, adequately sourced, free from plagiarism or copyright violations, and has a QPQ. Hook is interesting and cited to a reliable source. Approved for May 19. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)