This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
I have so much more to scan and post for both the bookstore and the gallery, that it seems a combined page might become unwieldy. External references are usually to either the store or the gallery; rarely to both. Other than "Cousin Henry" (Henry Miller), few artists of the time were both writers and painters, etc. Daliel (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support merger. I didn't propose the merger but I agree it should be done. There is just one entity, so splitting does not make sense. Notwithstanding editor Daliel's enthusiasm and projection that two articles are needed, the general practice is to split articles if/when needed. Here it is not needed yet. And if it were to be split, I don't know that splitting it between Bookstore vs. Gallery is the right way. Why not split between "daliel's up to 19xx" vs. "daliel's after 19xx"? You can't say because the material is not written. And, quick searching on Google finds me a couple mentions at gallery pages of "Daliel's Art Gallery", probably misstatements to make it sound better for sales purposes. The only usage I see of "daliel's Gallery" as a proper noun is provided by these wikipedia pages and commons photographs info all provided by editor User:Daliel. Likewise I wonder if "daliel's Bookstore" is another new construction. Hey, you can't just make up new proper names...Wikipedia has to follow established practice in naming not coin new names. To editor Daliel, develop using sources, first, and don't make anything up and don't use your "personal knowledge". Wikipedia should only report what reliable secondary sources say; if you know some factoid is true and interesting but don't have a reliable published source for the info, don't write it. This is not a breaking news magazine! --doncram04:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; content is almost identical already, and covers both topics on both of the existing pages; given the lack of opposition, DoneKlbrain (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]