Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag Institute


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 00:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Flag Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not convinced that this organization has sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet our notability requirements. Of the sixteen citations provided, nearly all of them are either to primary sources (i.e., the Flag Institute itself or those closely affiliated with it) or don't discuss the Flag Institute at all. There are only two sources which are independent, reliable, and actually mention the Institute, but even in those two the coverage is extremely scant. See the collapsed section for a full citation-by-citation analysis.

See also Articles for deletion/Charles Ashburner. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Primary source: Flag Institute's own publication
 * 2) Non-reliable source; irrelevant: A hobbyist site (FOTW) which in any case provides only contact details for the Flag Institute
 * 3) Primary source: Flag Institute's own website
 * 4) Primary source (or effectively so): Text of a speech given as an invited talk at a Flag Institute event
 * 5) Primary source: Flag Institute's own constitution
 * 6) Primary source: Flag Institute's own website
 * 7) Non-reliable source: Private correspondence obtained from a FOI request
 * 8) Non-reliable source: Private correspondence obtained from a FOI request
 * 9) Non-reliable source; irrelevant: Blog post on a company's website; says nothing about the Flag Institute
 * 10) Primary source: Flag Institute press release
 * 11) Primary source: Same as #4 above.
 * 12) Irrelevant: Government discussion paper which doesn't mention the Flag Institute
 * 13) Irrelevant: UK planning law which doesn't mention the Flag Institute
 * 14) Insufficient coverage: Newspaper article whose only reference to the Flag Institute is a quote by their chief executive
 * 15) Insufficient coverage: House of Commons transcript in which an MP makes a passing reference to the Flag Institute's publication in answer to a question about double flagging.
 * 16) Primary source: Flag Institute's own publication


 * Weak delete - it was only a matter of time before attention was drawn to this very poor, promotional article. As the proposer says, it is largely cited to primary sources and was written by Charles Ashburner of the Flag Institute. While on the one hand, the Flag Institute is widely mentioned in a number of news sources on a regular basis as an authority on flag-flying and protocol - for example advice was sought (but ignored) about flag protocol after the death of Maggie Thatcher. On the other hand, the article would need to be fundamentally re-written in order to become encyclopedic ...which would be a criteria for Speedy Deletion! Overall, I am erring towards the article being scrapped and encouraging userifying/resubmission if significant coverage comes to light. Sionk (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The following book from Google Books [] cites the organisation as follows: The Flag Institute, was consulted on the process of choosing a new flag for Bosnia–Herzegovina and published an article detailing some of the issues surrounding the potential symbolism to be present on the flag.. There is several other books which cite the org. The charity does have international prominence and it's also an old and well established UK institution which passes WP:ORG but the sources need to be updated to reflect this. The article needs substantial work. Half of it could go today, without affecting quality. scope_creep  (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A passing mention of the organization (such as the one in the book you linked to) is not sufficient to establish notability. Do any of the other books you allude to discuss the Flag Institute in any depth? —Psychonaut (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This article may certainly require more third-party citations, but is definitely not a candidate for deletion. See https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/flag-institute-spring-meeting-2011 Owain (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That citation was addressed in my nomination. It does not appear to be a fully independent source; it's the text of an invited speech at an official Flag Institute event.  In any case the speaker says almost nothing about the Flag Institute; the speech is about the importance of flags and various governments' policies towards flags. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The speaker (The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP) talks about the Flag Institute in glowing terms: The first paragraph: "40 years as a respected source of help and advice. Not only to the UK Government, but to the United Nations and other organisations around the world.". Followed by "The UK is very lucky in having - in the Institute - a group of dedicated and informed people who do a great deal to make sure that that respect is given." and "In your first 40 years you have established your credentials not just in this country, but on the world stage. Over the next 40, there can be no doubt that you will continue to go from strength to strength.". Owain (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There are sources described above, and they seem to me to be enough to keep the page. I'm also not sure I agree with the assertion that "private correspondence obtained from a FOI request" is not a reliable source; it is effectively an official statement of a governmental agency, and as such should have undergone appropriate fact checking, and is certainly verifiable (as other readers are welcome to submit their own FOI requests to the same source for confirmation). JulesH (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I found the following RS which say the Flag Institute is an important organization
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/3012285.stm
 * "The group promoting the new flag has now contacted the Flag Institute, which is one of the world's main research and documentation centres for flags."
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-13337196
 * "The Flag Institute maintains and manages the national registry of United Kingdom flags and this flag complies with its strict UK Flag Registry criteria."
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2469531/Yorkshire-flag-is-legitimised-at-last.html
 * "Now the Flag Institute, which regulates the flags used by counties and other local bodies, has finally agreed to register the white rose flag as an official emblem."
 * This combined with the sources above makes me inclined to keep this article. Transcendence (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just as a point of information, the claim from the second article is misleading, and the third is flat-out incorrect; there is no official regulation or registration of flags in the UK. The Flag Institute itself openly acknowledges this: "There is of course no UK Flag Act, under the authority of which such flags might have been endorsed, and it therefore falls to the Flag Institute to maintain the formal record."  —Psychonaut (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.