Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4IM Campaign to update Union Jack

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 of the debate was merge with Union Jack. Chances are that I will be merging this to the completely wrong section of that article, so please clean up after me if I screw up. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable campaign by a barely-notable group. Delete or possibly merge to 4IM. Stifle 14:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly merge, but keep the information somewhere. I don't think the campaign can be dismissed.Bjones 14:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe merge, keep the information. Notable, I'd say. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 14:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Union Jack JoJan 14:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 4IM with appropriate entry and link on Union Jack . Tonywalton  | Talk 16:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with 4IM --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 16:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Union Jack. The issue does seem to be mentioned more often in Wales these days, though most people raising it have probably never heard of 4IM. Rhion 22:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Union Jack. Chalk me up as another Briton (not Welsh, but only by about 20 miles) who's well aware that controversy exists, but has never heard of 4IM. — Haeleth Talk 00:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 4IM with appropriate entry and link on Union Jack. Josh Parris 02:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 4IM per Josh Parris. This is too obscure to be included in the Union Jack article. Ground Zero | t 16:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 4IM as previously suggested. Iancaddy 19:05, 7 December 2005 (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.