Talk:Salt Lake Metro

Should Salt Lake Metro merger and redirect be restored?
I created a redirect and merged the Salt Lake Metro article with the related QSaltLake article on Feb. 25. The redirect was undone a few hours later without a stated reason, but the merged text remains a part of the QSaltLake article and has been improved with additional references, citations and links. The Salt Lake Metro article hasn't been so improved, and proves the need for a merged article. As such, there now exists two, very similar, articles.

I wasn't part of the discussion to delete the Salt Lake Metro article, and didn't know about the disussion until the redirect was undone. The result of the discussion was to keep the article, which should mean that a valid redirect and merger is in order.

My reason to merge the articles, and two others (stubs), was that: 1) all the articles relate because the business projects which are their subjects were and are owned by the same person; 2) the most recent and largest of the articles is the QSaltLake article, and should logically include the older and smaller articles as part of its business history; 3) the information included in each of the three or more independent articles complements the others and should, therefore, reside in a single article; 4) maintaining three or more independent articles about different business projects is difficult and encourages disparate or redundant references, citations and links; and 5) doing so "is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect" and "is supported by the guideline to be bold when editing" according to WP:BLAR.

As described in the QSaltLake article citations and links, the QSaltLake publication is the legal successor to the Salt Lake Metro publication, and continues to be owned by one of the original Salt Lake Metro owners. The owner paid the business debt of Salt Lake Metro after creating QSaltLake and, as such, gained sole ownership. So, merging the articles is legal, logical and supported by WP to maintain single, unambiguous articles, when possible.

If the verifiable information was merged and improved (not deleted as discussed previously), shouldn't the redirect be restored? I encourage you to do so. Thanks! QSSVbibi6N76J (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm all for it. The article as in contains barely any refs.  Two arn't being used and the 3rd one supports this redirect.--v/r - TP 01:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)