Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chariot of Wisdom and Love

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 without predjudice for or against a merge which can be carried out without an AfD. Eluchil404 18:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chariot of Wisdom and Love

Listed as a speedy, but I'm really not convinced it meets the letter or spirit of A7. On one hand, a good deal of research suggests that there's not much else regarding this specific publication, but Jeremiah Hacker, the publisher, is certainly important, and a number of sources about him could probably flesh this out, too. I couldn't in good faith leave the speedy up, but I can't comfortably let this sit without better discussion, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Why not just merge it to Jeremiah Hacker then? -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 20:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about it, but I'm typically against merging in most cases. A merge to Hacker isn't going to help anyone looking for Chariot. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it will. The redirect will still be there, and the search engine will find Jeremiah Hacker if asked for Chariot; it's the fourth entry down now, even without quotes; Pleasure Boat is the third. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Allow me to rephrase - it will be able to be searched for, but people looking for info on Chariot aren't necessarily looking for info on Hacker. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - With a cut-and-paste merger, and a redirect to the new section in Hacker, they should be able to find all the information they want, right? (and more information about the publisher too) -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        After they sift through the stuff they don't need, yeah. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That's what the redirect to the #section is for. They dont have to sift, it will be at the top of their screen by default. (example at Dispersive PDE Wiki -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 20:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand how those work. That doesn't mean a merge is more useful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Extremely Wicked-Strong Keep There's nothing wrong to the article that meets the eye...JONJONBT ^{Talk to me!} 20:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge to Hacker, sorry for the above JONJONBT^{Talk to me!} 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I'll see if I can merge it now. JONJONBT ^{Talk to me!} 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hacker, which won't be hard. Almost all the information here is in a couple of sentences there. We don't need this article until it has some facts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hacker per WP:Notability --Javit 20:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the problem with merge is to see that the content is not lost--all too often it happens that the heading is merged, and the content gradually deleted. That should not be the purpose of suggested merges at AfD. DGG 03:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge it seems verifiable, and not a speedy so I'm really not sure why Jeff has brought it here. As to merge, no opinion. Personally, I'd merge for now as the Hacker article is so short too. If we get more information on either any editor can unmerge later.--Doc^g 13:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge as suggested by Doc^g. Could be split later, if required.--Arthana 10:50, 10 June 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.