Talk:New Rush

Merger
Can't see any benefit whatsoever of this article of Kimberley's early days not being merged into the history section of the main article. New Rush is not notable in its own right, as is evident by teh relatively smaller number of inbound links vs the Kimberley article. Socrates2008 ( Talk  )   13:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, New Rush should just be a redirect to Kimberley and the content should go into the History section in the Kimberley article. It is the same place after all. --NJR_ZA (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. I should have spotted that when I edited this recently. It's the same place and the reliance on a single source is a good indicator that this should be merged. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)