Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backside Flag

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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backside Flag

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real-world support for this phrase, or the propositions made regarding the adoption of a different flag. bd2412 T 23:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete In the absence of sources, very close to nonsense. Essentially all of the results in google are totally irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything I can find, including citations to US Military publications, say the flag is simply reversed to make it appear to be blowing in the breeze behind a pole while being carried forward - not to make it legally not a flag and therefore immune from some proposed amendment that will overthrow the president. This article reads like the workings of a conspiracy theorist, and without reliable citations, it can't stand. I'd speedy this even if appropriate. CSZero (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the absence of a FOIA release from relevant DoD and JAG lawyers, Heraldry, and even Natick Laboratories who were forced to implement this SNAFU, there is no secondary source for unpublished meetings from early in the Reagan Administration, to cope with "morning in America" ads. Keep the article, but perhaps factual motive should be down played with appropriate terminology. Sadly this policy is a response to silliness. The flag from either side is still beautiful and should be respected as a symbol and communications equipment of a nation ruled by the US Constitution. Deleting the terminology that was designed to protect the Military from political huberus, and save Soldiers lives, is problematic. Also BD2412 orphaned the article link from the Military preparations portion of the Anti-Flag_Burning_Amendment, so no one is likely to find it. Apparently the eyewitness needs to come forward and publish, but that is not likely. It first happened in the meeting location where Seal Team Six was founded. Also the Backside Flag predates concerns of the over application of Legislative authority to limit the first amendment, such as on aircraft tails. Because regulation is unpopular with Conservatives, yet Patriotism trumps that, this article will likely die. Any suggestions? Also how do we correctly apply predictions, such as regulation costs money? comment added by Npendleton (talk • contribs) 20:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even double-secret conspiracy theories turn up more references than this, which turns up zero. I call hoax. bd2412 T 22:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- So delete the page, its fine by me, no one needs to know your tone. Deletion saves everyone much bother. I am not gonna fight to make the military publish on this question.Npendleton (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. You do not need to "make the military publish on this question"; you only need to get a reliable source (a newspaper, news program, author of a book on the subject) to report on it. bd2412 T 00:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete this article is entirely made up. The American flag shown with the canton to the front is perfectly sound in terms of heraldry and is still the American flag. The United States flag is to be displayed with the canton to its own right OR to the FRONT. The flag on US Army uniforms is the United States flag, not this fantasy "backside flag." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montizzle (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and non-notable fringe theory.Edward321 (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR nonsense based on misunderstandings of just about everything the article attempts to cover. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:24, 11 April 2010 (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.