 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Merge
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of the discussion was no consensus. Quasihuman | Talk 13:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The author of this book currently has his own article, but there's nothing on it establishing any notability other than this book. Therefore I propose that that article redirect to this own, and anything salvageable from that one be brought over here. DreamGuy (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Proposal. Schuym1 (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose in general, a living author can write more books, but a book article isn't likely to be much expanded except for adding prizes, etc. I would consider going the other way round. DGG (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Contra Merge, but the other way round. The article about the author should stay. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)- Oppose—but if Davidson turns out to be a one-hit-wonder and doesn't write another book in, say, five years, then maybe. But if the articles are merged, it ought to be the other way 'round: The person remains, the book becomes part of the person's entry. --TallulahBelle (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- OpposeThe book and author are two separate entities and deserve separate articles. The Author is a person, with a biography of his own. The Book is a separate thing, and shares nothing in common with the Author. Sure one created the other, but once created, the book is now its own thing. Would you merge Mona Lisa with Leonardo da Vinci? Mardish (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Proposal The article on Davidson is only two sentences; its briefness looks pathetic. There is no reason to force the reader to jump to another page to read about his only book when two sentences take so little room. Davidson is hardly Da Vinci. Da Vinci has two-thousand sentences in his article and Davidson has two. If Davidson proves to be a prolific/important author, separate pages may be warranted. As it is, there is little enough to be said that one page will do fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.107.143 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I think they should remain separate articles. I do think that the article on Davidson should be expanded, though; possibly with his biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickV88 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.