Talk:Canaan Street Historic District

Merger proposal
I propose that Canaan Union Academy be merged into Canaan Street Historic District. The content in the Canaan Union Academy article can easily be explained in the context of Canaan Street Historic District, being part of that district. There's plenty of information available, thanks in part to Canaan Historical Society, so the Canaan Street Historic District article is potentially of a reasonable size that the merging of Canaan Union Academy will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. The final article is likely to be more complete if these articles are combined at this early stage. A section on the Canaan Historical Society (New Hampshire) could also be included here. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * pinging potentially interested editors. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * keep The merger target would not a good place for the categories within which the current article is properly included. Hmains (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger (i.e. "Keep" separate article). The AFD is still open, and this is in effect a new deletion proposal.  Seriously, why propose this, when sources were identified in the AFD discussion that allow for expansion of the article.  It would help if you did develop the article.  Possibly, down the road, one could propose a merger (but why?).  It does not help to "vote" negatively again about this topic and call for others' opinion again, with no contribution made.
 * In general, it is fine to note in both places that the school is included in the historic district, as is done in the many many Wikipedia articles about individual contributing properties which happen to be within historic districts. That adds, rather than detracts: the fact of a building being included in a historic district is not a reason to delete it. --Doncram (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) I !voted "keep" in the AfD.
 * 2) This is not a deletion proposal, but a suggestion of a way to further develop the general topic of the two articles (perhaps the two articles are stronger combined).
 * 3) I have contributed positively to both articles, at least in a small way.
 * 4) Merge is not "negative." Usually it helps further develop both stubs, and sometimes they are later split into two more developed articles.
 * 5) In a merger, the histories of both articles are kept. Due to WP's attribution policy, it prevents deletion of the source article (except for the unlikely outcome that the target article is also deleted). Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I appreciate your good intent, and I am sorry if you might feel I was too confrontational towards you here or in the AFD (which has closed "Keep"). I do feel it would be more productive to actually develop the article using all the sources identified, then later possibly consider a merger, rather than have everyone try to consider the totality of all the sources to make a judgment in advance. --Doncram (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose merging. Because of the unusual history of the school, this is more useful as a separate article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. There seems to be enough sourcing to support a separate article on the Academy, and as above, it has some history that wouldn't fit smoothly into the historic district article. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose has independent notability, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)