Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4IM Campaign to update Union Jack (2nd nomination)

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 delete, but I'm adding a brief mention of the idea to Union Jack#Other proposed versions. --Angr (t·c) 21:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first AFD ended with a "merge" to Union Jack. I merged it there and, not entirely surprisingly, I was reverted. Apparently, merging with that article is only clutter there, and after reviewing it I tend to agree: Merging with the Union Jack article is inferior to keeping outright or deleting. Personally, I think the article's subject is too restricted, it is about part of a campaign of a fairly small organization so I recommend delete. If merged it will need to be more of a "smerge" (abbreviated merge). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The reason I did not merge this with 4IM is that that article looks set to be deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm leaning towards delete, but possibly merge to Flag of Wales. Mat334 08:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If a merge is decided upon I think Welsh Nationalism would be more appropriate. Movementarian 09:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 4IM if it survives AfD, merge to Flag of Wales or Welsh nationalism if it doesn't. Definitely don't delete. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Welsh nationalism, I don't think 4IM are the first people to suggest this. JPD (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an issue that should be raised in more depth at Union Jack, but this article should not be merged as it is not about the debate broadly but about the views of one particular non-notable organisation. (Incidentally their proposed flag alterations seem arbitrary rather than being the produce of public debate, but that's another issue). There is a link to this group on the Union Jack page, and with the inclusion of a mention about this debate, then in my opinion that would be adequate. So delete this one, and then move on to a debate on Talk:Union Jack about whether that article is comprehensive. Peeper 12:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Welsh nationalism, leave the flag pages alone. I'm slightly prejudiced by the fact that all their proposed designs are either fugly, or take up far too much of the flag implying that the UK is a colony of Wales (everyone knows it's a colony of Scotland), or both. --Last Malthusian 12:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously, has anyone followed the external link? Jesus. And they use .bmps, for God's sake. Hard to believe that anyone takes these people seriously. In fact, Google suggests that no-one does outside the wacky world of British independence movements (free Slough!), so full delete. --Last Malthusian 00:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC) (Only reason I didn't vote delete before was that the previous AfD vote had left me with the mistaken impression that 4IM had been deemed notable.) --LM[reply]
• Merge to 4IM if it survives AfD, merge to Flag of Wales or Welsh nationalism if it doesn't. This is a notable topic.--Mais oui! 15:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I'm with Mais oui!. Technostalgia
• Delete and padlock to avoid further edit wars. Anything salvageable can be inserted into Union Jack. B.Wind 00:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - probably worth having, but as part of the Union Jack article because its not worth one of its own Cynical 12:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per JPD above. Turnstep 15:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, 4IM is gone, let's give its random campaign a graceful rest in peace. Stifle 23:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment With 4IM deleted as non-notable by consensus, mentioning their stupid controversial flag designs in the main Union Jack article would be nonsensical. --Last Malthusian 09:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I live in Wales, I follow news here, and whilst I can name a few campaign groups who are notable (here, at least :)) despite being small, this group and this campaign are complete news to me. A web search suggests that this is not my oversight; they are simply non-notable. If this didn't belong in Union Jack, it doesn't belong in Flag of Wales or Welsh nationalism (these would be first Welsh nationalists I ever heard of who want to continue the use of any variation of the Union Jack!) either. Delete. --Telsa 12:05, 16 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.