Talk:L.A. Percussion Rentals
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 November 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Emil Richards. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Merge edit
A merger does not seem correct for this. Both Emil Richards has his own 50+ year career (much before selling some of his instruments to LA Percussion Rentals), and LA Percussion Rentals functioned industriously for the majority of time before acquiring some of Emil Richards' instruments (company began in 2005, Emil Richards instruments acquired in 2012).
Straight from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging: Merging should be avoided if: 1. The resulting article is too long or "clunky" 2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles 3. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short
Alas, #2 and #3 apply to this issue. Take heed that this is not the correct way to go about these articles. --Xylosmygame (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Agree wholeheartedly. But the merged article [1] was not up to scratch on multiple grounds, and we now need to move on from this unhelpful decision.
- I'd suggest that the way forward is to create a good stub in user space such as User:Xylosmygame/L.A. Percussion Rentals, well-referenced and clearly establishing notability, and then raise a formal move request at WP:RM to move this to the article space.
- Assuming this move request succeeds there are several options as to how to then develop the article and incorporate the earlier material.
- But the important thing is to get a stub that clearly meets the notability guidelines, carefully avoiding anything that reads like advertising or original research. Andrewa (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- (((Like))) Xylosmygame (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Related articles edit
The discussion in #Merge above is also relevant to Emil Richards Collection, which was redirected [2] (no discussion nor merge so far as I can see) but which previously [3] contained a lot of useful information. Whether this information was encyclopedic content is another question entirely, there were again multiple issues.
See also Talk:Emil Richards#Issues. Andrewa (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)