Talk:Ambassadors Group

“BookRags is a subsidiary of Ambassadors Group so should be discussed here.”

Discussed, perhaps, but right now the article is damned near a coatrack. BookRags had an independent existence before being acquired by the subject, and has one since the cetral business of the subject collapsed. This should nor simply be a redirect. Qwirkle (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is unreasonable to devote a section of Ambassadors Group's article to BookRags, a subsidiary of Ambassadors Group before Ambassadors Group became defunct. Ambassadors Group certainly can be expanded to discuss its other subsidiaries and other activities.

Cunard (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

That’s a bit of a straw man. The question isn’t whether it is it is reasonable to devote a section to this, but whether it is correct to leave the article on BookRags, in toto, buried in a redirect. Qwirkle (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

...and a redirect to a defunct company, to boot. Qwirkle (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "whether it is correct to leave the article on BookRags, in toto, buried in a redirect", I would have preferred to have left BookRags as a standalone article but the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BookRags (2nd nomination) was against a standalone article and was for a merge. Given that a standalone article was rejected and given that BookRags was a subsidiary of the now-defunct Ambassadors Group, I do think it is reasonable to devote a section of this article to BookRags. Cunard (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)