Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of flags by number of colors


 * 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   no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

List of flags by number of colors

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list consists of original research, is unencyclopedic, and is not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No sources are given and the counts seem to be based on the specific images used in Wikipedia. Many of these flags can be rendered with a variable number of colors, especially the ones that include seals. Regardless, this is not a topic covered by reliable sources (other than listing the colors of simple flags), and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Kaldari (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Subject fails WP:GNG and the article fails WP:V. I feel bad, it's a pretty article, quite colorful, and someone obviously put some work into it. But unfortunately it really is non-notable trivia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral Significant sources have been added. I am not sure they address the subject of the article in sufficient depth to pass GNG, but the article is no longer a glaring WP:V fail. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep because I think this is just a rehash the already keep'd AfD for the sister article Articles for deletion/List of flags by color combination (which is also in the widely used Template:Lists of flags infobox). The complaint that there aren't sources given is fair, but that's just a task for cleanup. This is topic is about as easy to source unambiguously and definitely as they come (although tedious). The reason it doesn't have sources is likely because nobody contributing to it thought something as plainly obvious as how many colors a flag has needed a source. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit: As an addition to this. Looking a bit more into the sourcing. If you click through on most of the flags the colors are sourced there, e.g. here, here and here. I did find some articles like e.g. the Hungarian flag which on cursory reading seem to lack a source about the flag being a tricolor flag (even though that's patently obvious, but whatever, I guess nothing's too obvious to cite). But just to note that we don't have some endemic problem where Wikipedia is claiming that certain flags have 2-3 colors and we have *no* source for it. We just don't have it in this particular list, you have to click through to the flag articles. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - In agreement with the foregoing. And when "original research" is really just the rearrangement of material already in well-sourced Wikipedia articles, as is generally the case here, it's really not any more "original research" than illustrating something with a picture originally posted to illustrate a different topic is.. --Haruo (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – Vexillology typically defines flag colors very precisely, so the nominator's claim that color count may be wrongly based on Wikipedia pictures is irrelevant: if a particular WP picture does not reflect the official color arrangement of a flag, then the picture must be updated, not the color count. There are very precise sources for all flags, and most flag articles already have links to appropriate sources about the flag's design and color composition, including meaning and historicity. Finally, the list is not "indiscriminate" and it does no harm to people uninterested in the topic, while being a useful resource to readers who have a practical need for finding flags by color, or simply being curious. — JFG talk 18:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted above, not "indiscriminate". Number of colors in a particular flag is generally not vague. Sources can be added. RoCo (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Challenge - For all of you claiming that the number of colors is easy to source, please show me a source for our claim that the standard flag of Costa Rica consists of 8 colors (or any number for that matter). Kaldari (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming or assuming that the number of colors for any given flag is trivial to source. I was just pointing out that there's certainly a lot of cases where we can 100% get a completely reliable source that there's an exact number of colors in a given flag. What I don't understand about your argument is the assumption that just because we can't get a reliable source on some number of flags that the entire list is worthless and should be deleted in its entirety. It would be like saying that we can't have a List of sovereign states and dependencies by area list just because presently we can't come to a consensus on the exact political status of the Ukraine or Russia because of Crimea, and thus don't know how big those two countries are, and by extension the entire list is worthless and there's no point in having it at all. I entirely reject that argument as silly. It might be the case that the number of colors in a flag like Costa Rica's is uncited or just unknowable, but then it can just be listed as such in the article. I.e. as some fuzzy range of colors, or "these are flags where there's no consensus on the number of colors, but it's at least X and less than Y" or something like that. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The flag of Costa Rica (used by government for official purposes) has 3 colors.  . Whether the colors of the coat of arms (or any other symbol) should be included as a part of the flag can be sought through community discussion. Costa Rica also makes a peculiar case in this regard as private citizens are forbidden from using the flag with the symbol. According to one award-winning survey, the colors in the symbols were excluded from the number of colors in the flags. It is completely possible to mention whatever consensus has been achieved, in the article, and to find sources for the same. Almost every country I've ever heard of has atleast one source mentioning the colors in it, sometimes from the government directly.


 * RoCo (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Having seals in flags is pretty common. It looks like about a third of the flags in the current list have seals or other complicated graphics. How do you propose that those flags be dealt with (in a way that conforms with WP:V)? It seems that RoCo is suggesting that the seals be ignored (or sometimes ignored?). Any thoughts on that? Kaldari (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't know proposing community discussion meant suggesting the seals be ignored. Coming to WP:V, reiterating what I told right above, flags of almost all countries have at least one source mentioning the colors in it. I believe members of WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology will be better able to propose and proceed with the manner of classification of flags with seals and other symbols. RoCo (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Mentioning colors is not the same thing as stating how many colors a flag contains. Without a plan to address this problem, I still favor deleting the article, as it seems unlikely to actually get fixed. Looking at the talk page, the discussions are full of original research; not a single source has ever been mentioned in the article's 13 year history. Instead of meeting my challenge, you just chose a different version of the flag. How about Nicaragua, Mexico, Belize, Guatemala? There are no sources stating how many colors those flags contain because the number is variable depending on how the seal is rendered. Doesn't that seem like a major problem with this list (that is potentially unresolvable)? Kaldari (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Right now this article is completely unsourced and fails WP:V. Sources are not optional and the article cannot be kept if none are added. Also there is no evidence of notability for this subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See my move to Neutral at the top of the AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Why do we care what colors each flag has? Or how many?  Or whether the green in Equatorial Guinea's flag is light or dark? (Or "tree" -- really? What color is a tree? Which tree?)  Why is it encyclopedic to compile such a list?  How many readers will consult WP to find out how many colors the Mexican flag has, when they can simply look at the flag?  This is an exercise in keenly observing the obvious.  We all have a finite amount of editing time; every minute spent on this is a minute that could have been spent improving the encyclopedia. Surely the editors in question can find something more useful to work on.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  18:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you know about Vexillology, but flag colors are defined precisely according to it. Also, how many readers would want to google 200 flags to check the colors in each one for mere curiosity, let alone a project? Not many I presume. RoCo (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, why would someone need to check the colors in 200 flags? I'm not a vexillologist (obviously), nor am I familiar with what those folks do on a daily basis -- or how this article could help them do it.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  03:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As it is the study of flags, the reasons could be many. For instance, the number of colors could be related to the history of a nation and how it was symbolically represented in a flag. The number of colors could also be used in observation of trends (See 'Vexistats' pdf below). It is certainly significant for the study. RoCo (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This all seems rather academic since the article STILL does not cite a single independent reliable secondary source. WP:V is not optional and there is zero evidence of notability. Every word above is neither here nor there as long as this remains the situation. If the article remains unsourced it can't be kept. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There is a much more meaningful and encyclopedic article that exists, List of flags by color combination which specifies colour combinations. The number of colours per flag is just indiscriminate fluff. Ajf773 (talk)
 * Keep The main problem seems to be the lack of verification. Well, surely the verification is a picture of the flag itself? As long as the picture is accurate according to the country's criteria for their own flag, then that verifies the colours (and hence the number of colours). If there are problems with any images, causing innacuracies in this list, then that means that the image needs to be corrected.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The main problem is suitability, ie whether it qualifies for WP:LISTN and does not appear to be in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Just because a list is verifiable doesn't make it encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually what is being described by Phantomsteve is pretty much a definition of Original Research and it is a big no no on here. Beyond which we STILL have no indication of notability. The bottom line is that completely unsourced articles are not allowed here. Period. This is not complicated folks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So now we have some RS, from which we learn that the number of colors per flag appears to be on the rise, perhaps due to improvements in flag manufacturing technology and changing cultural preferences. With all due respect, so what?  And there are still the problems of notability and original research. My vote remains unchanged.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Per WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOT. Narky Blert (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Either one is sufficient to delete the article.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Just because we can [organize a list of something according to some characteristic] doesn't mean we should, [especially if that characteristic is not categorically discrete such as color, weight, attractiveness, odor, etc.). Neither can I see any useful reason for having this list— who would want to read it?  Why?  (Or how about "List of flags by last name of person credited with being president of the corresponding nation when that flag was first used at a football game"? "Reductio ad absurdum"). KDS4444 (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a close call, but the strongest argument advanced upthread is that the article fails WP:LISTN and has original research concerns. Neither of these substantial issues in the article can be resolved easily, even if you threw 500 sources at it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: As mentioned by Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, this seems to be pretty similar to Articles_for_deletion/List_of_flags_by_color_combination, which was kept. This article is fairly straightforward, and it seems that sources could likely be found for most flags, beyond just looking at them. Lists like List of flags by color combination and List of flags by color seem to generally be accepted, so I don't see why this article wouldn't, and that also makes me disagree with the notion that no one would ever want to read this list. If those lists would have a reader base, I imagine this article would as well. This list is straightforward and presents accurate information in a useful way. bojo  &#124;  talk  23:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I voted keep above, but for those that voted delete I think something that would clarify this whole thing is: Could you please clarify whether you think your arguments to delete this also applies to deleting List_of_flags_by_color_combination (which as noted was already discussed before), and if it doesn't, what you think the critical difference is between the two? Furthermore Template:Lists of flags has (excluding per-country lists) 20 additional lists, e.g. lists of flags by aspect ratio, date of adoption etc. To what extent does your deletion argument apply / not apply to some of those other lists? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I nominated this article for deletion for two reasons: Original research and unencyclopedic content. List of flags by color combination also suffers from those issues, but not as much as this article does. I think the other lists are mostly OK. Kaldari (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: At least some of the concern regards the question of WP:OR. The other article being compared here did not have those concerns. Just because one article is similar does not mean we keep another like it for the same reasons. WP:OSE. I've not decided yet, but if there is OR, then it should be deleted. If you want it kept, clean up the article, provide WP:reliable sources to prove WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm really not that strong on list notability policies, but this seems like a (oh-no, he's going to say that word that you're not supposed to say in AfDs) useful and (oh-no, again) interesting way to present this information.  WP:IAR, maybe, but I think this is a keeper.  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, but redefine the scope so it's national flags (for example). This is currently just a mess of any old flags with no (clear) inclusion criteria.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 07:24, 31 March 2017 (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.