Talk:White Horse, New Jersey

For earlier discussion about the traffic circle's inclusion, see Articles for deletion/White Horse Circle and Talk:Hamilton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey. Bryan 22:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The basic point I raised on the Hamilton Township talk page remains the same with regards to this article:
 * What possible reason is there for not including information about it here? This article is currently just a bland Rambot product without any other content, shouldn't it grown beyond that by having more content added about places and events of significance? It's not like the article is busting at the seams with too much information about the township, overwhelming readers with detail and trivia. If it had been put in here first instead of in its own article, would anyone be trying to rip it out now?

With the additional comment that this is now in an article about a town of less than 10,000 people, so I wonder what other sorts of landmarks might be put in this article if a traffic circle is so unimportant that it must be removed. Bryan 22:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's more a neighborhood of Trenton that happens to lie outside the city limits. --SPUI (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I dont get why that article of White Horse Circle is still there. There was a consious to Delete not merge and most users don't want to read about that traffic circle anyways so just get rid of it --JAranda'' | yeah 03:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is a fundamental disagreement over what AfD/VfD is actually voting about. You, I take it, believe that AfD is voting on whether to delete the contents of the article from Wikipedia - you're voting on whether the information contained within a given article should be anywhere in Wikipedia at all. I, and presumably the others who are restoring this information here, believe that AfD is only about the article itself - we vote on whether there should be an article on a specific topic in Wikipedia. If the vote says no, that doesn't necessarily imply anything about whether the information that was in the deleted article belongs elsewhere in Wikipedia.


 * As a hypothetical case, let's say I went crazy one afternoon and created the article Longitude and lattitude of White Horse, New Jersey with the contents "White Horse is located at 40°11'30" North, 74°42'4" West (40.191659, -74.701191)." This article is then quite righly VfDed (afterthought: actually, it should probably be speedied. Let's say it's VfDed anyway, though - maybe I wrote it so eloquently it gave the speediers pause. :). Should this information thenceforth be forbidden from appearing here in White Horse, New Jersey? This traffic circle is a subject that doesn't really warrant a separate article, but that doesn't mean that no information about it can appear anywhere in Wikipedia. IMO it is quite reasonable to describe it here. Bryan 00:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In all probablility, the result of the AfD would be some sort of merge, (likely a merge and delete, a somewhat unorthodox vote, but a possible one). Certainly I'm sure there would be no specific prohibitions mentioned in the AfD against some mention of the coordinates, though if there were, they shouldn't be included in the article. But it is the content that is being voted on. That is why a vote to merge/redirect is NOT a vote to delete. Take another hypotheical. Someone writes an article on Dick Fusco, a resident of White Horse who has every episode of Bablyon 5 on tape, and occasionally appears on the local public access channel where he discusses "This Week in Star Trek". He is very fond of Quizno's chili. Such an article (assuming, as you do, it isn't speedied) is basically unanimously voted to be deleted. Is the author then free to move the entire contents to the article on White Horse, or Babylon 5, or a new article on "This Week in Start Trek" (or, heaven forbid, all three, with a redirect to one of them)? Of course not. Now someone may say "well, no, that's different, it's an unverifibale vanity article", is one "delete" vote different from another "delete" vote based on what sort of article it is? ot as far as I have ever been aware. And for verifiability (which is an issue, though not the one I care to address right now) suppose someone had written an article on a minor local business, Jim's Fish Fry, for example (a hole in the wall that has been around for a year doing meager business, all verifiable). Articles on businesses are routinely deleted, unless they are truly significant in a way that goes well beyond "a bunch of people in town go there to eat". Should the town's article have the deleted paragraph at the bottom about this one business, or should the delete vote stand as a true delete? If there was any sort of consensus that the Fish Fry was significant enough to be mentioned in the town's article, then a merge vote would have prevailed. In the case of this one rotary, as in my hypotherical fish fry example, that was not the result. The article in question, I think, is closer to the Fish Fry example than the latitude example, as it involves content beyond brief statisitcs, and includes content deemed pointlessly trivial. -R. fiend 16:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Why shouldn't the hypothetical Jim's Fish Fry be mentioned in this article? This is a town of less than 10,000, as I've pointed out before, it's not like it's going to be bursting at the seams with stuff any time soon - and when it does it can be condensed down to a more manageable size again through routine editing, no voting needed. I also note that there's a specific policy against advertising that businesses can potentially run afoul of, but that would be pretty hard to apply to an intersection on a non-toll road. Bryan 00:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It might well be reasonable to include a brief paragraph on the aforementioned Star Trek fan, or Fish Fry business, in the course of an article where it has some relevance. It should probably be considerably slimmed down from a full-length article, however, so if the deleted article was lengthy it should probably not be inserted in full. *Dan T.* 01:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I seriously hope you're not serious that some kid whoose sole accomplishment is that he's a fan of Star Trek should be mentioned in any article, however short. That has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. And I'm sure Jim would love to have his Fish Fry advertized in Wikipedia; I'm just glad it doesn't exist so I don't have to bother deleting it. -R. fiend 12:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

White Horse Circle
can we add the local moniker 'Malfunction Junction'?216.233.94.209 17:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, if some sort of verifiable reference can be provided so non-locals can confirm it. Bryan 00:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comments
''These have been moved here from a subpage as part of a cleanup process. See Discontinuation of comments subpages.''

I have assessed this article as C-class and identified the following areas for improvement:  shirulashem     (talk)   17:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is not comprehensive and needs expansion