Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag of Dorset


 * 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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Flag of Dorset

 * – (View AfD

This is not a proper article for inclusion in an encyclopedia, being a news story about a competition for a flag for Dorset. The person who first submitted the article was promoting his design for a flag for Dorset and created a smokescreen of his intention by including an existing Dorset County Council flag and commentary about an historic figure in Dorset - St Wite. Until the competition is over and a design agreed, there is no need on Wikipedia for this blog.Dorsetpatriot (talk)


 * What you say is unproven and untrue. When this article was created, there was a commercial flag in circulation - a banner of the arms of Dorset County Council and an independent campaign- ours. That was it. Two unofficial flags in circulation and this page reflected that. Since then, the county council have blundered their way into the whole thing(as of April 23rd 2008). Commentary about St Wite is valid - as we believe our flag could be named after her and until recently - was. Whether it is a contender or not, it is a high profile alternate unofficial flag of Dorset - it is being used by the people of Dorset as a flag of Dorset. White43 (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I see some of the comments disagreeing with me (here and on the discussion page) have widely missed the point. Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia and not a newsletter or blog. The article has been greatly toned down since its original entry but I still hold it has no value in this location. It is promotional of a single design in a competition to be the official flag of Dorset. The other counties mentioned in the discussions have passed the deliberation stage and can rightfully be included - they are now historical fact. This flag, firstly St Wite's flag then renamed the Dorset Cross is a matter of the creator's opinion. I will have no objection to an entry once the deliberations are over and a flag chosen. Otherwise, all flags entered to be the official flag should have their own entry in Wikipedia - clearly a nonsense. Mr White calls the banner of the arms of Dorset County Council an unofficial flag. This is misleading in his context. The banner exists and is recognised - as the banner of Dorset County Council. It is not anything other than that, but as it exists officially, it can be mentioned appropriately on Wikipedia. To make an analogy, where is the page on David Cameron, the Prime Minister?Dorsetpatriot (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes - but this flag is on sale and being used in exactly the same way as the armorial banner of Dorset County Council. If people are using it as a Dorset flag, then it is a little different to the other paper entries is it not? Also, didn't it exist before the contest? Wasn't it in circulation before? There are people selling clocks on Ebay with the image on! This flag exists whether unofficially or not and is commercially available - it deserves some recognition due to the fact it got this 'contest' going..87.127.178.28 (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wikipedia for informing me about this flag – having seen it flying I did wonder what it might be and a scan across the list of English flags enlightened me. I am now somewhat dismayed to find a move to delete this article. This strikes me as peculiar and ill-considered, such items do not get encyclopaedic reference elsewhere and this sort of account is precisely Wikipedia’s strength. Further research indicates to me that this flag is by far the leading contender in the current search for a county flag, it has received notable support both in the media and popularly but what is more, it is flying and is therefore a noteworthy event – removing this article would be an irresponsible action by this resource. I note that flags of many irredentist groups and pseudo-states feature in Wikipedia’s pages, they are there as a matter of record, they are in the public domain and appear in Wikipedia for people to refer to –this is exactly the same. The article does not state that this is the county flag but relates that it seeks to be – just as David Cameron seeks to be Prime Minister. When the other competition entries begin to fly I would expect to see them appear in these pages too but for the time being please do not excise information about the one that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexilo (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

People coming to the page currently will be unaware of how the entry started off - as a promotional marketing exercise for the St Wite's flag (now renamed the Dorset Cross). Why I ask for deletion is that soon we may have a genuine flag of Dorset (and yes, it may even be this design) and that the Wikipedia entry could then be unbiased, factual and not-self-serving - as an encyclopedia entry should be. I used to put corrections into the page to show what the situation was - a competition running/ many entries/ non-selected - and I toned down the entry about the Chair of the County Council as it was impolite. However, each time, my edits were edited, leaving me to make a decision to nominate the page for deletion. It can return as mentioned, when it is appropriate.Dorsetpatriot (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with your edits were that they made many 'weasel' statements like 'people say' or 'people have said' without backing it up. The page is supposed to be factual, not about peoples opinions either. Your edits weren't well placed either and felt 'tacked on'. Your assertion that this page was primarily a marketing exercise for the Dorset Cross are also unfounded - that is purely your opinion. You should have discussed why your edits were reverted on the page's discussion page, rather than nominating for deletion. This amounts to you not getting your own way and deleting the page - not very Wikipedian of you. It doesn't matter how the page started off, we're dealing with the current content now. I suggest you cancel your vote to delete and get to the discussion page and offer like SpeedyMcG a solution to the page, perhaps bullet-points of what should and should not be included?


 * Also, just a small thing, but can you properly sign your username by clicking on the appropriate button? 87.127.178.28 (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't need to back the statements up - following the links already in existence on the webpage to the newspaper forums, these comments can be found. If there is an audit trail from the original insertion to the current one, all my points can be proven by reading the pages in chronological order. Wikipedia does not exist for free marketing. In newspapers, items that look like news entries but are marketing have notices of "Advertisement Feature" so that the reader is not mislead. However, I may have been overzealous about the need for openness and factual reporting - it appears only 3 of us are looking at this entry. Dorsetpatriot (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you do need to back the statements up, Wiki has policy on Weasel statements. It's no good to say - follow the links to find what people say, you must reference. Besides, again, it's opinion, just deal with the bare facts. Stop repeating yourself and do something other than bang on about advertising. You aren't being particularly constructive, rather destructive. Now I believe Speedy McG has offered to re-edit the page to this extent, now if you agree with that fine. If not, then please give a further explanation as to why not. That's at least two of us who say no to deleting that page, which outvotes yourself. 87.127.178.28 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It took a long time to get here but for the first time, the page is what it should have been at the start. Provided there is no reversion to the earlier style, I remove my request for deletion. Dorsetpatriot (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:26, 8 June 2008 (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.