Yantacaw Brook Park, New Jersey was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 21 January 2018 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Yantacaw Brook. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
There is no reason to repeat material about brook in park section. There is no reason to ad redundant information in infobox. There is no reason to keep dead links. There is no basis for keeping OR.Djflem (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Djflem:, it is my understanding that it is generally considered against WP:CONSENSUS for an editor to unilaterally remove material that has been added as the result of a discussion. In this case, the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yantacaw Brook Park, New Jersey called for at least some portion of the material on the old page to be added here. Your removal based on your personal opinion seems to demonstrate an WP:OWNERSHIP attitude. Please expand on why you believe the previous discussion was incorrect. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 22:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
It is my understandng that people read what they are adding to Wikipedia. Once you've reviewed the entire article, can you get back to this talk page about why you would believe the information you're adding is relevent, useful, helpful, interesting, correctly placed, referenced, etc. Please explain how it is an addtion/improvement to the piece and not just a repetition of what is already in it? ThanksDjflem (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
