This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Football: Scotland This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball This redirect is supported by the Scottish football task force. Scotland Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What is the purpose of retaining a seperate section, a relic from when this article made a pretence at being a club page, containing information that is clearly a duplication of what is previously stated, adequately, in preceeding sections?Gefetane (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being a duplication of information is not, in itself, a problem - lots of articles overlap content. In the case of this article, the company was formed and bought those assets - that is factual and sourced, and should therefore be recorded. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we know it happened, no need to point that out. The question was is there any purpose to the duplication? Duplication without purpose is a problem because its pointless content, surely we don't need to dig out policies for that point to be understood. I'll give you another chance to point a purpose out, as you certainly didn't in your last response. Gefetane (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What causes more harm: removing content that some believe is important to an article or leaving content in that some editors believe is not required as it is already mentioned in another article. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

although it meantions it int eh lead it shoudl meantion it i the body of the main article, i would support it getting merge to one of the otehr sectiosn maybe ownership and finaces. or the otehr sections, its not really needed as ti own section but the details need to remainAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an ip's change to the text when they deleted the statement that the history of the club was bought but feel it needs clarification. I understand that the source is a published document intended for creditors. There are a couple of points I'd like cleared up. First off, would the reference pertaining to the statement be considered a primary source and if so should there not be a secondary source or confirmation from the SFA for example that the history of the club was bought. Secondly, how much did the history of the club cost if it was bought? Clay More47 (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes it is a primary source, but there is plenty of reliabl 3rd party sources that confirm it, the problem is ther fans from other clubs will not want to accept it regardless of source so will always deleted it. as for the cost we wont ever get to know how much the history cost other than it was part of the 5.5M saleAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a good idea then Andrew to add the non-primary sources that state that the club bought the history of Rangers FC. Note that I stress the word bought as it's important that the sentence in the article is as accurate as it can be. Clay More47 (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

its on my to do list, as with all rangers articles improving them to minimum GA GA LIST quailty (i know ther eno offila ga list quailty) but i am working ont eh main rangers page jsut now and i am on abreak from wiki only spordically on jsut now. if you want to have a look through teh sources i have got from just after the buying of history happen feel free to do so its at user:Andrewcrawford/mydraftAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sevco Scotland bought the assets, business interests and history of The Rangers Football Club plc. Some are now suggesting that buying the history of a company amounts to the same as buying the history of the club. Of course, the very people arguing this point are often people who argued that the company and the club were not the same entity - yet thet are arguing that the history of one is the history of the other? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well after what just been shown to me on the rangers talk page i have to say i can see the point that the company is the club as it appears someone has edited the 1959 badge to remove ltd from it but i dnt care either way i will only put wha tthe sources put but i need abreak from wikipedia i have nearly got ymself banned because i am getting pissed off with itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing that the newco bought the old company's 'corporate' history, quite the opposite, that's why HMRC are now going after the individuals responsible to recover the company related finances owed. The newco bought the club's history, which was winning trophies before the company existed. This was confirmed with the transfer of the SFA membership, which incurred football related penalties (some of which were financial). The club's history cost is no doubt intangible within the 5.5m.

Even the BBC are now referring to the club as separate from the company "The company that previously ran Rangers entered administration in February..." http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19450768, so please stop going back over this again and again.

Does the SFL page count as a 2nd source or primary http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/rangers/ as it shows the same history. Otherwise the BBC shows the results of the previous season, as with other clubs, implying the club's history continues http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/results. Here also the lead paragraph refers to the same club history http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/all-about/rangers%20fc-1. Regards S2mhunter (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article you quote also says "However, after the Rangers Football Club plc could not be saved from liquidation and were relaunched by a new company,..." What? The plc was not not relaunched by a new company! This article is all over the place in trying to explain what happened. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rangers FC, in terms of "the club", is simply whatever entity operates the Rangers membership licence that was issued in 1873, and is currently resident with The Rangers Football Club Limited.
• The essential point is this: Rangers Honours are not tied to a company incorporated in 1899, they are tied to the Rangers Football Club membership and will follow the membership to whichever corporate entity operates it.
• This proven by the fact that honours won prior to 1899 are credited to Rangers, despite Company no. SC004276 (formerly The Rangers Football Club plc now heading for liquidation) not even existing back then.Gefetane (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You logic is flawed as regards your third point: honours won by Rangers prior to 1899 were added to those won after 1899 because the Rangers that existed prior to incorporation was the same entity as that after 1899. All that happened in 1899 was that the club became a limited company. The change in 2012 is of a completely different type as the company that the club had become entered liquidation and its assets were sold to a completely new and unrelated company. While the new company could clear buy the physical assets of the old club, there is actually no way to buy the history of a club even if a buyer and seller wished such a transaction. Of course, everybody may agree to recognise Rangers playing today as the 'owner' of the history going back to 1872/3, but that is not the same as a legal fact as is being implied. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fishiehelper, if you believe Rangers that existed prior to incorporation was the same entity as that after 1899 you are, by definition, not defining "entity" along the lines of "company". Therefore please explain how Rangers FC (Company X) is a different entity to Rangers FC (Company Y), as, now the Club's membership has been transferred, the fundamental difference between the two is purely corporate??? Here are your options...

• Either: Rangers FC distinct company identities are distinct entities with distinct trophy histories, so Company SC425159 cups aren't added to SC004276, but that leaves you with the clear contradiction of explaining why pre-1899 honours were credited to Rangers company no. SC004276, IF company identities are distinct entities with distinct trophy histories.
• Or: Rangers FC trophy history is not divided between the lifetimes of distinct corporate entities, and you must concede that trophies won post-2012 will be rightly added on to the running total.

I've said Rangers history is continuous because the Club membership is continuous, so not sure what the relevance is of the legal stuff you mentioned. I'm not entirely familiar with corporate law but in a legal document Duff and Phelps clearly stated the "history" was part of the transaction, were they lying? Secondly, are you familiar with 'intangible assets' such as 'goodwill', these are regularly part of transactions with monetary values attached, so I am highly sceptical of your understanding that non-physical assets cannot be bought.Gefetane (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to suggest only two options from which to choose reveals that you don't get my point. Let me try again: Rangers prior to 1899 and Rangers post 1899 were the same entity - all that changed in 1899 was that the entity changed from being unincorporated to being incorporated. What has happened in 2012 is radically different: a new entity has been created, assets of the old entity have been bought, the previous entity's SFA membership was transferred to the new entity and now we are being told to accept that it is a continuation? I can accept that Rangers has been relaunched as a club or reformed as a club (both supported by sources) but those editors attempting to suggest or imply anything less than this are being, frankly, dishonest. You are correct that I did not define 'entity' as 'company' because the entity that was the club became the entity that was the company when the club became a company in 1899. In 2012, Green's consortium bought the club's assets so he could relaunch/reform the club. That is a new entity but a continuation of spirit/identity etc. That is why Rangers fans will count new titles won on to the previous total while many fans of other clubs will not accept that as valid. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonest? There is nothing dishonest about the position that Rangers are the same club because they retain the one essential, official, unambiguous designator of what is a "club": a club membership licence for a football association. Stadiums, players, owners, kits, corporate identities, all can change during the history of a club, but lose the licence and continuation of identity is broken. Membership was issued in 1873 for Rangers Football Club, and the same membership continues to this day in the 3rd division. These are facts supported by sources.

When you choose as you have done to go down a road of do-it-yourself definitions of "entities", you get into a mess.

• You say Rangers pre-1899 and post 1899 was the same entity, which means you are defining the word "entity" on a non-corporate basis, consisting of assets that necessarily pre-existed incorporation (name, club licence, playing ground, playing/management staff, whatever).
• However, you then say Rangers pre-2012 and post-2012 are different entities, which means you are contradicting yourself by defining "entity" on a corporate basis, as - the company change apart - the non-corporate assets that previously made up your definition (name, club licence, playing ground, playing/management staff, whatever) have remained largely unchanged.

You mention a "continuation of spirit/identity etc" but fail to mention the Club licence, the only official designator at play, within that list: failure to recognise this is your fundamental error. It doesn't matter what fans think about future trophies, if Rangers win another trophy it will be another trophy won by the Club membership issued by the SFA in 1873, the only consistent thread - besides the name - that has run through the history of the club. The club called Rangers. Gefetane (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You repeat the error made earlier in trying to suggest that I am "defining the word "entity" on a non-corporate basis". The issue is not whether the entity is corporate or not, but whether it has existed continuously. Let me ask you a question: On 14th June, a new company bought all the assets from Rangers Football Club plc. On 3rd August, Rangers' SFA membership was transferred to this new company. Could you tell me where you believe 'the club' was between June 14th and August 3rd? Was it with the old company, even though all the assets, business and history had been sold to the new company? Or was it with the new company, though it did not have Rangers' SFA membership? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only way you can say Rangers pre-1899 and post-1899 are the same "entity" is to define it on a non-corporate basis, because there was no company pre-1899! As for your question, the transfer of Rangers from oldco to newco was a two-stage process: 1. The acquiring of the assets, brand, identity etc... 2. Official recognition as "Rangers Football Club" when the SFA membership was transferred over. Between stages 1 and 2, the newco were operating Rangers assets but it would be unofficial in the eyes of the governing bodies. That was why they could only play behind closed doors. You may be interested in this extract from Lord Glennie's rulings regarding Rangers, This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers"). Rangers are members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA"), and are bound by the Articles of the SFA Glennie clearly differentiates between Rangers the member club, and the company operating them. Gefetane (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have not answered my question. You say "the transfer of Rangers from oldco to newco was a two-stage process". If Rangers is an 'entity', it must have existed in some place between June 14th and August 3rd - unless you are suggesting that it was in two places at once? The fact that you can not tell me a single location for the entity between June 14th and August 3rd explains why what happened on August 3rd was the club being reformed. (To be fair, let me also address your point about me defining Rangers on a non-corporate basis. Let me be clear: if a club starts life as a company it starts on a corporate basis, and if it starts life without being a company it starts on a non-corporate basis. However the entity happens to start is not the issue and whether the entity changes from a non-corporate to corporate basis or vice versa does not matter... so long as it is the same entity!) Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your question - the assets of the club had been bought my Newco, but the club licence itself had not transferred so - officially - the process was incomplete at that stage. I simply cannot see the relevance of this. If the matter had not been concluded and the licence and club assets stayed seperate, you'd of course have a point. But they didn't.

Once again you've not addressed the contradiction I've pointed out: your definition of Rangers 1873-2012 as one entity draws no distinction between unincorporated or incorporated, yet you are defining Rangers post 2012 as a different entity purely on the basis of a corporate change. That is inconsistent, that makes your argument flawed. Gefetane (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree entirely: there is a world of difference between a club deciding to change from being an unincorporated club into an incorporated club, and the Rangers situation of an incorporated club entering liquidation and having its assets sold to a new, unconnected company, that then reforms the club. If you disagree, we will just have to agree to differ on this. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i aint 100% sure but i believe in that period your talking about fisherhelper, they where in techical limbo, where they where not a offical club, but had bought the club, if that makes sense, im not goign to wad into the history debate but ill give my personal opinion after doing lots of research, a a company can buy te brand and history of another company and merge it with there own company, however i can not say for certain this has happened with rangers as the finer detail that tell you that is not of public domain so we have to assume it was done right but wikipedia goes on sources and sources do confirm this anyway im outAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the club transferred from the oldco to the newco the day the assets (trophies etc) were purchased, which is why Green was given proxy to attend the SPL meetings but I agree there was a time lag in the SFA transferring the club's "membership" from the oldco to the newco (thereby validating that the history was indeed purchased on 14th June as it meant Rangers FC membership is unbroken since 1890 and is the explicit justification why the SFL present Rangers history intact) until they secured a place in the SFL. Regards S2mhunter (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do see the point, S2mhunter, except you are trying to dodge it by suggesting that the club was bought on June 14th. The reality is that contrary to what you would like to believe, there was a break between 'the club' and its assets that lasted for almost 6 weeks. Then 'the club' and its assets were reunited - that was when Rangers was reformed. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you both forget what matters for wikipedia is not the wp:truth but what can be reliable sourced to 3rd party sources and verified. the argument could go in circles for years but the end fo the day 3rd parrty sources still refer to them as a new club, reformed club ie within a new ocrpture entity, and the same club we can only put wha thte sources say.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I have been looking with interest at the conversation above since I first posted. Unless I'm mistaken there has been no forthcoming secondary or third source put forward that specificaly confirms the statement that they bought the history of the club. I understand Andrew that you say they are out there and I would welcome those sources that will enable the sentence to remain. Alternatively, if there is no reliable source that confirms it, the sentence will have to be altered. I won't change it immediately but will give it another day to see if the reliable reference can be sourced. Clay More47 (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this one gives some detail about it http://sport.stv.tv/football/112218-qa-the-outstanding-issues-over-rangers-scottish-fa-membership-transfer/ but there is other i dnt have time to do it just now i will be away for a while and jus tnow my time is limited, there is quite a few on the bbc, have a look at this page user:andrewcrawford/mydraft it has at least 1 reliable source confirming it, as i say its on my to do lis tot fix, wha ti suggest is put a ^{[citation needed]} tag and also tag it with tag so it clear that there isnt a reliable soure there just now which gives me the time i need to fix it but also makes it clear it is in dispute so other can post here proving the history never got trasnfered, however the sfl website for rangers details there history which include sthe history form the old companyAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this one confirms it [1] "To make it crystal clear, the new owners purchased all the business and assets of Rangers, including titles and trophies," he said." and bbc is seen as one the most reliable sources on wikipedia it also states "However, Rangers now play in Division Three of the Scottish Football League after the old parent company headed for liquidation and the new company was denied entry to the SPL. And Green said: "The Rangers Football Club Limited will not attend tomorrow's hearing of the SPL-appointed commission investigating the circumstances surrounding the use of Employee Benefit Trusts by previous owners of the club"

Andrew, That wasn't a comment by the BBC but rather from Green himslf so would be considered a primary source. I have done as you have asked and added the tags to enable you the time to find those secondary and third sources. Clay More47 (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

however some would conisder bbc to verify what is said, and not to publish anything that isnt true, so it a touchy subject, the problem is to prove history was bought isnt easy even with sources as all sources will havea biased in one way or another hence why bbc is consider reliable since they shoulnt have a biased, i will find other sources that say the history was bought but some will argue that they only say that because they are printing what green has said, then will some will argue the source will have access to information we dnt its impossible sitution the arguement woint stop but i agree primary need to be 34rd partyAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here is another from another poster above [2]"Rangers will this season be playing in the unfamiliar surroundings of Division Three of the SFL. It's a far cry from the glory days when Rangers won a host of trophies, including a world record 54 league titles and appeared in four European finals, winning the Cup Winners' Cup in 1972." why would they be talking about the team in third divison having world record titles? there alsoa similar one liek this on the rangers page but i dnt have time to go through it, i hope you can see it isnt clear cutAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source that states clearly the Joint Administrators were able to secure a going concern sale of the business, history and assets of the Company to Sevco (see Section 5 for further details) It is an official, publicly available, legal document, making it a reliable source within the context. Gefetane (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D&P have issued a new statement and again its mentioned by Paul Clark, "I can confirm that the business and certain assets of RFC 2012 plc — including the honours won by the club — were acquired by Charles Green’s consortium as part of the sale and purchase agreement." BadSynergy (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These 2 sources also show the club's history supporting that it was bought by the newco http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/rangers/ & http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/ Regards S2mhunter (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an inherent contradiction between saying that newco bought the titles but newco cannot have them taken away because newco is nothing to do with the club that allegedly won them by cheating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source that substantiates your claim? I see no contradiction as Charles Green does not state that the newco has nothing to do with the oldco but says it is because the club is no longer in the SPL "Neither the SPL, nor its commission, has any legal power or authority over the club because it is not in the SPL" http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19550517. This one clearly says that stripping titles is possible "The league has more than a dozen sanctions at its disposal, including stripping Rangers of league titles, should it be decided that the club broke rules about side payments." http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19576436. Charles Green wanting to ignore any such penalty does not mean that it will not happen. Regards S2mhunter (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about this source as a citation http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/inquiry-into-rangers-alleged-use-of-ebts-1339100 "The good news is their entitlement to the 140-year history they’ve so desperately been trying to cling on to has officially been recognised by Lord Nimmo Smith."? Regards S2mhunter (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is nonsense. Why is there an article "about a company that runs a football club"? What does that mean? What other articles are there in the encyclopaedia about "companies that run football clubs"? Mooretwin (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

firstly the arsenal and man utd ones, but the reason this article exists if you read the talk pag earchives is because someoen created a pov fork sayign this was the name of a new clbu which has been proven worng but it has been through to afd and both times was to keep and non consensus so teh article needs to remain its on teh list to get improved as company article simialr to the arsenal and man utd onesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the Man United article to which you refer, but the Arsenal one article is about a holding company, which is entirely different to the fiction of this article. The Rangers Football Club Ltd is not a holding company: it is the football club. This article should be deleted or merged with the main Rangers article. Mooretwin (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this company is not a ootball club as has been disguisisd by judges and the football govern bodies sorry but if you disagree you need ot find soruces tha tprove your point, it wont be merged or deleted botht eh merge and afd have been to keepAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 07:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a football club (the clues's in the name)! What else is it? Mooretwin (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To save us time explaining I would suggest reading through archives on here and on Rangers FC to see the reasons why. BadSynergy (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you just tell me what it is if it isn't a football club? Mooretwin (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the hitn is with Ltd but it doesnt matter if you are willing t read we dnt need to tell you, if you feel this is wrong by all means bring a afd or merge discussion you will find it wont get far, but this is holding company liek aresnal holding the onus is on you to disprove it which will be hard when reliable soures state it isAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a holding company, tell us what company or companies it holds. You're making the claim, so the onus lies with you to explain. Mooretwin (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mooretwin, this article was originally a fork from the Rangers F.C. article due to the fact that there was a very heated debate regarding "new" club or "continuation under a new company". Consensus has the continuation aspect in favour along with the majority of the reliable sources. In all fairness you are correct that this article is more or less redundant and it should be merged with Ownership of Rangers F.C.. Should we open a merge / delete request and see what the response is? Monkeymanman (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we should. It is now clear that secondary sources are treating "newco" Rangers as a continuation of "oldco" Rangers so there is no longer any need for two separate articles. Mooretwin (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear distinction between a football club, and a company that owns and operates it. That's why a football club can have different companies owning and operating it throughout it's history. Have a read of the recent legal opinion of Lord Glennie and Lord Nimmo Smith which is mentioned here. You may not be aware of this as it only comes to light in cases where there is a change of relationship between the football club and the company that owns and operates it. As in Leeds, as in Luton, as in Rangers etc... Otherwise it's common parlance to call the company the "club", as in "I've got shares in the club". There's a list of 3rd party sources as long as your arm substantiating this if you're interested, from the likes of the SFA, SFL, SPL, HMRC etc... Gefetane (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"There is a clear distinction between a football club, and a company that owns and operates it": no there's not, otherwise for every football club Wikipedia would have a second article about "the company that owns it". Rangers FC plc's membership of the SFA was transferred to Rangers FC Ltd and secondary sources are treating these two entities as one and the same, therefore Wikipedia should have a single article and treat the latter as the continuation of the former. Mooretwin (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you disagree with my wording, or think that Lord Nimmo Smith/Lord Glennie/everyone who thinks Leeds oldco and newco represent ONE football club etc... are all mistaken, is besides the point as to whether this article should remain or not. I think a merge into an "Ownership of Rangers FC" article is the best option. Gefetane (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to make the same point. The arguments about clubs, companies and ownership are essentially irrelevant to the question of whether or not this article should remain. I agree that it should merge. Mooretwin (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]