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. (non-admin closure) ansh666 01:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

As the page currently stands, there are zero sources, and not enough content to justify its own article. This article was previously a redirect to Maritime flags#Jack. I propose that we redirect it back there, and userfy this page if Banderas wishes to improve it. Alternatively, he and any other interested editors have a week to improve the page in its current location, and if they can create a decent article or at least a worthy stub, I'd vote to keep it as is. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 18:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect/Userfy if said user wishes to improve the page - Per nominator. Jackninja5 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect/Userfy if said user wishes to improve the page (Copied from above) Completely agree that this should not be a stand alone article and should be deleted/ redirected if it cannot be improved. ツStacey (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redundant information, already has entry at Maritime flag, no sources. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nominator does not propose that we delete this page. Andrew D. (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - We need a page with a gallery/list of Naval jacks. The Maritime flag article doesn't have a comprehensive assortment. --Hibernian (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable enough, with the gallery included. Article needs improvement. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article needs work, but definitely worth an article of it's own. Would have closed as keep, but didn't want to be accused of closing a discussion too early, since it's about 5 hours before 7 days. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 26 January 2016 (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.