Talk:1421: The Year China Discovered the World

message: For such a proposal, please see here: Forthcoming book on Atlantis#Merger?. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge article 

message: This has been controversially merged and redirected to the author's article Gavin Menzies.
I believe a discussion should have occurred after the merge was constested, per WP:BRD. 
The book itself is notable, so per WP:NOTABILITY, it should exist as a standalone article, as it is notable outside of the author, since the book is far better known than the author. In fact, if it were to be merged, both the two books and the author should redirect to the their presented in them, instead of redirecting to the author, since the author is less well known than his theory. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion of notability of the book should occur on this page. As it is, it is a New York Times bestseller  and it is ranked higher than 10,000 at Amazon  ; that's higher than The Pelican Brief , and we have an article on that, based on the fact it is a bestselling book! This book definitely satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (books) .  70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, my first recommendation was conditional (I used the word "if").  My second recommendation has nothing to do with the question of notice on the other articles' discussion pages. Other Choices (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

text: What was that you said about civil conduct? ClovisPt (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

text: And who's this "We" of which you speak, and in what "official" capacity do you act? -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, how can an IP officially do anything? And we have no 'official' biographies on Wikipedia, official biographies are authorized by the subject, and we don't do that here. Maybe this is just trolling? I mean, 'their original glory'? Are we supposed to take that seriously? Whoever this (kid?) is, they don't seem to know, or they are pretending they don't know, that there is never an 'original' after the first edit that crates an article. I'll also point out that Wikipedia is not a forum and that freedom of speech doesn't apply here. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

text: See discussion below - you and 98.71.1.5 are clearly the same person, so the Community consensus will not count your !votes twice -- Boing! said Zebedee 19:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's pretty clear, we're being trolled. I don't think we have to take any comments from these IP's seriously. Dougweller (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: May I point out that this anon editor is the person who started the "controversy" over the merge in the first place. I take it this discussion is effectively over. Cheers all. ClovisPt (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is starting to sound more like a propaganda pamphlet from the 1930s rather than a discussion about Menzies in 2010. Lol. If IP Address 71.68.249.69 is not an obvious, deliberate troll here only to get his kicks, then I don't know what a troll is! Given the flowery language, this is certainly no longer a serious discourse between those who oppose or support a merger.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

text: That's an interesting idea and compromise; although I still support a merger, I would weak support this idea if it gains traction.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I'd also agree with this proposal. Though I'm not strongly against the merger, I don't think there was any consensus for 1 Menzies article as compared with 2 and too much was cut out of the 1421 article in the resultant merge. Chris55 (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Merger of a notable book into the author's article