Should this page continue as a stand-alone article or merged into Gordon Tullock? Amisom (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain stand-alone article None of the WP:MERGEREASONs apply. Tullock's Spike is a discrete topic from that of Gordon Tullock, its creator, and WP:MERGEREASON explicitly says that we should not merge. The current article meets the notabbility standard. Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) seems to think that he OWNs the article and has the right to merge it without discussion and without following the proper procedure. But he doesn't. Amisom (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge — The section on the spike topic at Gordon Tullock#Tullock's spike is two sentences. Two sentences an article does not make. By all means, expand the spike section of Gordon Tullock with all the citable content that exists. Does such content exist, by the way? If someone were to find it and show it to us, that would be helpful. Maybe the spike section will grow so large that spawning a sub-topic would be obvious, and uncontroversial. Nobody will fault any editor who expands Gordon Tullock with good content. Nobody will fault an editor for spawning a new article when the spike section has grown to prodigious size. Why not take the path of least resistance? Rather than try force through a proposal to keep a two sentence article that merely defines a term Tullock is known for having once made a quip about? Even if an expanded spike section of the Tullock bio article doesn't grow large enough to merit a new article, the effort spent expanding it is a worthwhile addition to the encyclopedia. Win-win. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- It can always be un-merged later if needed. -- The Anome (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  What does 'if needed' mean? It meets the GNG. What more do you want? Amisom (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect. This is a very short article and there is no likelihood of it getting any larger. The overall presentation of the article is clearer for readers with them merged. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  But WP:MERGEREASON says that this is a reason not to merge: The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short. What do you say to that? Amisom (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mostly I wonder why you haven't been blocked for edit warring yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    [2] [3] [4] [5] Amisom (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge --Seems like it is a minor mention. If the section is greatly expanded, then maybe an article should be created.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." - WP:MERGEREASON; and "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." - Wikipedia:Notability. --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• merge per WP:MERGEREASON - text. After all, if expanded sufficiently it can be unmerged any time. --Kostas20142 (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]