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. - Philippe 03:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic flag[edit]

Coptic flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article violates WP:Verify and WP:Notability for the reasons explained here --George (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. [1] This article in an Egyptian newspaper attacking the idea of the flag counts as coverage in a reliable source. There may have been cover in other Egyptian newspapers as well. --Eastmain (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above. FusionMix 23:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One article in an Egyptian newspaper isn't significant coverage, especially if it calls the flag's creators separatists. I think if we're going to keep this article we should say that the creators are separatists since this is what the only reliable source says, but I don't think the article is notable enough to keep it. Also, the Background section is full of unverified claims. --George (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to have enough sources as far as I can see. Stifle (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The flag has widespread acceptance among many Copts and Coptic organizations. In addition, it has drawn much public attention within Egypt (see Masrawy portal [2] Akhbar Al Hawadeth official newspaper [3], Secular Studies and Research Center in the Arab World [4], the site of Copts in the Holy Land [5], a Cambridge-based survey on Copts [6], Coptic Canadian Organization alluding to an article in the Egyptian magazine Rosa Al Youssef mentioning the Coptic Flag [7], this is in addition to the other links already mentioned within the article itself). For all these reasons, I believe the article is very relevent. Finally, I do not see any unverified claims in the article. Please point out what you're alluding to. --Lanternix (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is no proof that it "has widespread acceptance among many Copts and Coptic organizations", the links 2,3 and 7 are against the idea of the flag and call the creators separatists, the 4th link does not represent an official organization (only the view of the site's owners), the fifth page is a copy of this link (The Coptic Flag, Meanings and Colors) which is already in the artilce, and the sixth page is a survey asking wether you have heard of the flag. The links 2 and 3 prove that the flag has drawn some attention in Egypt, but it isn't enough to have its own article in wikipedia and the fifth link belongs to the "Coptic Church in Nazareth-Isreal" which does not represent copts at all (according to our article on Copts the number of copts in Israel isn't significant enough to be mentioned, the same argument applies to the link to "the New Zealand Coptic Association"). The article in the "Free Copts" site (The site that introduced the idea of the flag) is written by the creator of the article on wikipedia. (NB. the "Free Copts" isn't an official organization, and they "do not claim to represent the Coptic people as a whole politically or otherwise in any official capacity"[8]).The unverified claims I was pointing to were the first and last paragraph of the Background section as a whole.--George (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the source George pointed out it looks like Lanternix (talk · contribs) is directly involved with one of the sources cited to claim notability. Not necessarily a WP:COI but for me at least draws some of the claims above into question as potentially non-neutral. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's keep the article since it appears to enjoy some notability, and instead focus on improving the article if you feel that it needs balancing. I realize it's a sensitive topic that seems to generate strong reactions from its opponents, but this is not exclusive to the flag. George and Lanternix, you appear to have reached consensus to remove it from the infobox at Copt, so please just continue to work out the details of the article itself on its talk page. Some of the issues raised in the links supplied by Lanternix can be pointed out in the article, for example, but this is an issue for the talk page not AFD. — Zerida ☥ 00:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the idea of the flag, but this isn't why I nominated the article for deletion, I really think it isn't notable, most copts have never heard of it (I am a copt and I first saw it on wikipedia) and it isn't recognized by the coptic orthodox church (the only organization that represents copts in general).--George (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The mere fact that the Coptic Flag is a subject for controversy is a good enough reason for me to consider it as both notable and verifiable , if it is not notable so why the controversy!? and if it is not verifiable so how come people are arguing over it, agree with it or not , I don't think that there is enough reasons for deletion--Ghaly (talk) 10:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I think the article is very notable. The fact that you have not heard about it does not mean much. I am sure there are many people who don't know about things that relate to them in one way or another. For instance, I am sure you have not heard about the flag of the Coptic Orthodox Church itself. There is a large Coptic community in Israel/Palestinian territory, this is why they have their own Coptic Metropolitan (who is hierarchly second to the Coptic Pope). Furthermore, the Coptic Orthodox Church does NOT represnt the Copts. There are hundreds of thousands of non-Orthodox Copts. The Coptic Church only has dominion over spiritual issues, NOT over political and secular stances. I agreed to remove the Coptic Flag from the infobox of the article Copt since most people deemed this appropriate. I will however compose a section in this article about the Coptic Flag, at some point. I will try to address further issues when I get some more time. --Lanternix (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot to mention that I've seen hunderds of Coptic youths posting the Coptic Flag on their facebook profiles. I think this says something about how widely accepted the idea is among Copts. --Lanternix (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, I am a copt, I asked my friends, my relatives (from Egypt, USA, Canada and Italy), and a priest and they all said they have never heard of it (But you're right, it doesen't matter, see WP:IKNOWIT). I haven't heard of the flag of the Coptic Orthodox Church either and their is no flag in its article on wikipedia. What I meant was that there is no church in Egypt (or other countries with a significant coptic population) that does recognize the flag (not necessarily Orthodox). According to our article on Copts, a copt is a native Egyptian Christian, I think this means that the coptic church is the organization that represents copts officialy. (maybe I'm wrong)--George (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. Other statless peoples, or national liberation movements have such pages Palestinian flag and this one has gotten at least some attention from the press. Thomas Babbington (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington[reply]
• Delete.

1. The article is almost a carbon copy of page, and is written by the same person.
2. The current sources are the above link, the article from Akhbar El Yom, the "New Zealand Coptic Association" and an internet forum. The internet forum can't be cited as a source (see this), the "New Zealand Coptic Association" does not represent copts in New Zealand (whose population is unknown / less than 1000), and the link to the site of the "Free Copts" who, according to the article in Akhbar el Hawadeth are the ones who designed the flag (not independent of the subject), they are also called "separatists" in the same article (see this). The only source left is the article itself (the newspaper article) which isn't significant coverage.
3. The Background section does not cite any sources (except for "Egyptians are not really Arabs"), and isn't in any way verifiable. The section claims to represent the views of copts in general. (see WP:Verify, WP:SOAP/Opinion pieces and WP:NPOV)
4. The article was changed/reverted many times to equally non-notable versions and a POV tag was removed from the background section. (see the article's history page, and WP:CIVIL)

--George (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Seems like a wonderful flag and concept generally, but not worth including in an encyclopedia until it has more notability established by secondary sources. But if it really does become a well discussed and commented upon symbol in the future then re-add the article. Having the New Zealand subgroup and the free copts blog adopt it does not in my mind make it an established symbol either, and if it really does become popular with youth then at a certain point that will attract comments and notability that way. Or if it became officially adopted as a predominate symbol, that would cross into notability for me or perhaps have it merge with the copt article. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.