Talk:Higher evolution

It has been suggested that this article be merged into Spiritual evolution. There are two reasons.

One is that the article on Spiritual evolution is more developed and says essentially the same thing.
The second reason is the number of articles that link to each. See below:

Links to Higher evolution here. Links to Spiritual evolution here.

In fact, almost no real articles link to Higher evolution. They are all indexes or talk pages. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is true that Spiritual evolution is a more developed article, but it is also a collection of various topics. Can you suggest here in what way the merge should happen? Section of its own? If so where (in which order)? Hoverfish Talk 22:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. But first don't foget also the contrast between the number of articles linking to them, thus identifying with the term. "Spiritual evolution" just seems to be the term of choice even by those who would possibly identify with the opening paragraph of "higher evolution" which isn't a term in any tradition I know about. See here and here. "Spiritual" has over 100 articles I count, and I can't find any actual articles referring to it "Higher." But yes, I have some possible suggestions. One is to use the paragraph at the top of 'higher evolution,' which you reverted to, to improve the opening paragraph of "spiritual evolution" which now that I look at it is extremely hard to follow, a lot like the opening paragraph of "higher evolution" before you improved it a few days ago. The problem is that the "spiritual evolution" arcicle is an old one, and likely has a lot of people that follow it and are now pretty tied to how it is written, but you never know. One can always assume good faith. Another suggestion is to add a section to "spiritual evolution" called "higher evolution" and insert the paragraph currently under that name and just see if people like it. If not, I can't think of what can be done. If there simply is a consensus to keep things the status quo, what can anyone do? Dazedbythebell (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one seems interested in doing a merger, perhaps the tag should be changed to 'delete.' The article is redundant. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can attempt to merge and see how editors of the other article react before nominating this for AfD as redundant. I will do this tomorrow. Hoverfish Talk 01:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan. Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed with the original author of "spiritual evolution" and he is rather for the idea of naming this topic as synonymous with spiritual evolution and not keeping anything from this one. See here: User_talk:Goethean#Merger_discussion Hoverfish Talk 02:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read your discussion with Geothean, and think his suggestion makes perfect sense. Adding the synoynm might even add some clarification to what is meant by spiritual. I suppose once that is done, this article can be named for Deletion. Am I right? Or does that one word count as a merger? Seems like Deletion request, with clarification of what was agreed upon, might be faster and occur with less delay. I see no sign of a bot or admin taking interest. I've never done a deletion request. Have you? Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have, but AfD will not be necessary here (see hatnote of Wikipedia:AfD). All we need to do is redirect this topic to Spiritual evolution.However, before I do a "bold redirect" I will invite the author of this small article to give us his opinion. Hoverfish Talk 16:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds smart. Especially if he sees the discussion here and what Goethean said. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stub author here. Thanks for the message. Yes, please redirect this to Spiritual evolution as suggested.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you too. Hoverfish Talk 17:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]