  == Have you read this ==  Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy. It's an informal guideline, two-and-a-half years old, and never cited in my experience. But it's a good guideline and I see no reason not to cite it. In sum, where there is no obvious reason to delete, keep redundant material.   This springs from the Temperance organizations vote. There is no rule which states redundance in a category demands an article of the same name's deletion. That temperance organizations has become a cat actually demands, to my mind, that the main article be expanded, not deleted or merged. We don't delete Mars, JFK or Oman based on redundancy in the cat. Of course, one can argue redundant but also useful material should be kept, as your note suggests. But AfD isn't about clean up. Temperance organizations in-itself could be an eminently useful page.    I'm not an inclusionist at all (if you've look at my votes) but this is the one delete criterion that I disagree with and that I believe doesn't have policy or guidelines to support it. I only note this to you because I noted something similar on the AfD sub-page after your comment and because I've seen you at AfD. Have to start somewhere if you want to revive an old guideline.  