Talk:Binion's Horseshoe

Opening comments
Why shouldn't this article and Binion's Gambling Hall & Hotel be merged? They may be different legal entities etc. but obviously Binion's has virtually zero history except as the Shoe. IMO they should be the same article, possibly under the historical name (because it's far better known). Cf. something like FleetCenter as precedent for merging, albeit not as precident for using the better-known historic name as the primary one. -- PhilipR 20:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Owned by different companies, combining the articles will confuse history since the name on the property was changed. Most of the history is asociated with the Binion family.  They are not involved with the new company.  Combining would also confuse the issue if you follow the link from the owning company to an article that is mostly about a different properity.  Remember that WP is not paper so we can split this stuff and just leave a link in case someone happens to find the wrong article.  The cost for the redirect is not much less that the cost of having an article. Vegaswikian 03:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I should have added that the Horseshoe name is probably going to appear again in Las Vegas, so using that name in a combined article while there is another article with the same name could be a real mess. Vegaswikian 03:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna have Binion's Horseshoe be merged into this article.
 * I agree with the above. Turn Binion's Horseshoe into a redirect to this article.--michael180 20:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, make Binion's Horseshoe into a redirect. You might want to make Horseshoe Casino into a separate article about the other Horseshoe properties, with a see-also at the top linking to Binion's.Realkyhick 05:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Seeing the talk of a proposed merger with Binion's Gambling Hall & Hotel, why was it undone? &hArr; EntChickie  23:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)