Talk:Yantacaw Brook

Yantacaw Brook Park
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)
 * , 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 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)
 * 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)