Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag of South Africa (1928–1994)


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Flag of South Africa (1928–1994)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is redundant to Flag of South Africa - any new content can be easily covered there, may be a Content fork, as no splits have been discussed at Talk:Flag of South Africa in several years,if at all. BilCat (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly a relevant topic and the flag issue has a political dynamic of its own (compare with Confederate flag). --Soman (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments - I chose deletion rather than a merge discussion in this case as there seems to be a fad to create undiscussed CFORKS of this flag. Flag of Union of South Africa was created last month by another user, although that version was short and completely unsourced. - BilCat (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep For a start this page, covers the article of the flag of the Union of South Africa similar to the way we have Flag of the Orange Free State. It also focusses on its use post-1994 and its rebirth as a symbol of white supremacy (not pleasant I know) in a way that the current SA flag article does not. Per WP:NOPAGE it states that if content would make an article unwieldy then it is better to be separated. As the current SA flag page info can be covered in the old SA flag page better especially given the current SA flag page has unsourced info, it would actually be better to put the current flag info into the old flag page. Not to mention it would give WP:UNDUE to the old flag if the info in it was included in an article about the current flag. Also the Content Fork guideline specifically only applies if it is a way to avoid NPOV. I know this is a controversial issue but I have tried my best to make it as neutral as I can without endorsing either the nationalism symbol or apartheid symbol positions, therefore the guideline is being used incorrectly here as I had no idea that there had been previous issues.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, if you say that there is a fad of creating NPOV CFORKS of SA flags, then retention of this page would cut off any further NPOV forks being created as the sourced and neutral information would already be in this article.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that you created the article in good faith, hence my use of "may" in reference to CFORK. However, I'm not sure why you felt you didn't need to discuss creating the article beforehand, probably at Talk:Flag of South Africa, given that it is a controversial issue, and that article is relatively short, with room for expansion. - BilCat (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So an article with 1,550 words (only 200 less than Flag of South Africa) is relatively short? The reason why I didn't was because I was making it to include information that is not covered in the summary of FOSA (ie. the OBB name, the white supremacist rebirth, the Cape Town Castle etc.) not to mention that most of the info in the FOSA page about OBB is unsourced and I thought it uncontroversial to write up a sourced history of it.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  19:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "that article is relatively short" is referring to Flag of South Africa, which you've confirmed. - BilCat (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't confirm it, I questioned your statement. But I wouldn't consider 1,550 to be a short article.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1750 words is "relatively" short. - BilCat (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge - into a new Flags of South Africa. The content is worthwhile, but it's silly to have two articles for one subject, especially when the combined content isn't that large. - the WOLF  child  20:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI: Flag of South Africa: 1,750 words/15,000bytes • Flag of South Africa (1928-1994): 1,550 words/13,000 bytes • Flag of the United States - 12,400 words/100,000bytes
 * Just sayin'... - the WOLF  child  20:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact the American flag has 300 years of history while the OBB has around 88 and the FOSA only 22. Of course there'll be more info to go in. More interesting the is fact that the OBB has a similar level of content size in comparison to FOSA, which suggests it makes more sense to keep this article and merge the FOSA info about OBB into the OBB article.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that it would then be out of keeping with the commonly accepted MOS for national flag articles.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you mind pointing us to the exact section of MOSFLAGS that you're referring to? Thanks - the WOLF  child  21:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to MOSFLAGS, I was referring to the unwritten MOS of flag names. ie. Flag of the United Kingdom (not Union Jack), Flag of the United States (not the Star Spangled Banner), Flag of Canada (not Maple Leaf Flag), Flag of France (not Le Tricolore), Flag of Japan (not Nisshōki or Hinomaru).  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, the "unwritten" MOS... - the WOLF  child  22:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, once South Africa has 300 years worth of flag history, then we can split into two articles like the US flag. Oh, wait... - the WOLF  child  21:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Aside of the fact we already have Flag of the Orange Free State, Flag of Transvaal etc? We have separate articles for the separate states that comprised SA at different times, this article is no different.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Those other 2 pages are basically stubs, they're quite small. - the WOLF  child  22:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is already a list of South African flags. Ibadibam (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The OBB has a post 1994 section, it may be confusing to have thr 1994 flag in the same article.Wayne Jayes (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Flag of South Africa - The common practice has been to cover historical flags in the main Flag of X article, where it exists. (The usual exception is when there is no single successor state, as with Flag of the Soviet Union, and even that has been disputed. At any rate, the Union of South Africa is not such a case, as it has a clear successor in the Republic of South Africa.) We can do away with confusion by renaming the "post 1994" section to "subsequent use" or similar. Ibadibam (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So should we get rid of Flag of Great Britain by the same rationale then?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 22:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I see a case for a merge, yes, although I suppose others might argue that the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom are distinct enough entities to warrant separate articles. Ibadibam (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable comment although, the question of the Union moving from a constitutional monarchy with white and limited non-white voting franchise and equal status for British and Afrikaner symbols into the presidential republic with a whites only franchise and predominant Afrikaner symbols. Is that distinct? I'd say that it was. There is also the additional possibility moving from that apartheid state into the current state, though I would not consider that as distinct as the move from Union to Republic which I'd say was on par with England becoming the Commonwealth of England and back.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 23:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument would be that the United Kingdom succeeded two states: the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. The new flag combined elements from the flags of both predecessors, in much the same way that the 1928 South African flag did. The gray area in the case of the UK is that it wasn't particularly a union of equals, which might frankly be called an annexation, in which case Great Britain and the United Kingdom—along with their flags—should be considered two periods of the same state. In South Africa, the 1994 constitution was a major change in the makeup of the state, but whether the borders and composition of the country itself changed probably depends on whether you view the Bantustans as genuinely independent sovereign states or as semi-autonomous regions created as a legal mechanism in support of the Apartheid scheme. Given that the common interpretation is the latter, its more accurate to call 1994 the change of an era in one country, rather than the change from one country to a new, territorially distinct country. Ibadibam (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: There's a lot of WP:OTHER going on here, but I'd like to drill back down to basics: --Slashme (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The topic of the previous flag is independently notable. It has a strong political flavour and has been discussed at length before, during and after its life as an official national symbol, and into its zombie existence as a rallying point for reactionaries (similar to role played by the Vierkleur). It easily passes the GNG.
 * There is enough content to justify a main article, to be referenced from a section of the general article about the South African flag.
 * It isn't a content fork. A content fork is when you create a new article about the same subject to give it a different spin. This is a main article about a subtopic.


 * Keep: for the same reasons mentions as well as because it seems large enough to warrant its own section article.  Merging it with the South African flag article would run the risk of making that article too large, thereby possibly being counter to WP:TOOLONG.--Discott (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Notability is not in question here, so may I suggest closing this, and somebody starting a merge discussion? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. There is no need to do that. If people felt it would be worthwhile to merge it, then consensus would have been made here as stating merge is an option in these discussions. However consensus here appears to be to keep it with agreement that a merge is not a good idea so there is no need to put the article in double-jeopardy as it is said that it should not be.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:28, 17 March 2016 (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.