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. John254 02:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Galleries must be in Wikimedia Commons, WIkipedia is for encyclopedic articles. look the talk page OsamaK 19:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This article is an encyclopedic article: a stand-alone list which provides a comprehensive overview (quite literally) of all the ways in which crosses and cross-like symbols have been, and continue to be, incorporated in flag design. It is a key component of the larger Gallery of flags by design, an important set of vexillological articles that together organize the many flag-related articles on Wikipedia in graphical/design terms.
Moving this article off of Wikipedia and onto Commons would reduce the usefulness, accessibility, and credibility of its contents. As far as I know, Commons articles are not intended to be indexes into material on Wikipedia, and are not subjected to the same high level of review and standards enforcement as Wikipedia articles. Moving it there would turning this structured index of verified and actively edited information into a mere collections of media files.
I'm aware that this article departs from the standard list formats defined by the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). But to quote from that page, these guidelines are "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." In the special case of flag lists, there is a long encyclopedic tradition of including color plates listing flags as graphical matrices, a tradition well worth following here. The caption below each flag is well-suited for noting the flag's identity, noteworthy features with respect to the article's topic, and linking the reader to further information. A blanket ban on Wikipedia articles that rely primarily on the gallery formatting tag has not been adopted by our community (has it? I'm confused by the assertion "Galleries must be in Wikimedia Commons" above.), and articles like these are good counter-examples for why such a rigid ban would be counter-productive.
As a counter-proposal to deleting this article, I would suggest revising WP:SAL to include style guidelines for the special case of flag lists. (The gallery tag actually not the best format to recommend, as it sets each flag to a uniform width, when a uniform height is preferable -- see Gallery of sovereign-state flags for a better format.) I would also suggest pruning the content on this page of any flags for which there are not Wikipedia articles; i.e., a kind of no redlink policy. I would also be unopposed to renaming the article to conform to the naming conventions pertaining to list pages -- it would also clarify this article's essential nature as a list, not a commons-like collection of media files for re-use. --ScottMainwaring 22:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to exist a precedent that galleries of flags are maintained on wiipedia, though I would think that they should be on commons. Handschuh-talk to me 03:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it would nice to see the article improved with some discussion of the crosses on these flags. E.g.: Are there one or more historical origins of the use of crosses? Do all crosses represent the same thing? Etc.. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a good overview of the various flags with cross components. Would like to see some more discussion within the article as per User:Reinoutr above Dumelow (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to Flags with crosses and expand with text explaining it's one of the most common motifs in vexilology, etc--victor falk 09:49, 22 November 2007 (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.