Talk:Peter Denny

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion 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.

Jan Arkesteijn has proposed that William Denny and Brothers be merged into Peter Denny.

<rationale missing>
Oppose - There should be sufficient material for an article on each. If either is predominant, it is the shipyard. Finavon (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The shipyard went on to exist long after the death of Peter Denny, and was a notable company in its own right. We have many such articles on the Clyde builders and other shipyards. Similarly Peter Denny is a notable businessman and also deserves an article. As the nominator did not take the time to provide a rationale, did not bother to complete the merge proposal, and this discussion has attracted virtually no discussion since its proposal, I think this can be archived and closed as a failed proposal. Benea (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.