Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cranford Historical Preservation Advisory Board


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was rename to Historic sites in Cranford, New Jersey and repurpose. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM   (talk to me)  03:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Cranford Historical Preservation Advisory Board

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just an advisory board as part of the township of Cranford. Hardly information about the board itself, fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 18:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep and Rename to Historic sites in Cranford, New Jersey *OR* Merge / Redirect to Cranford, New Jersey From the nomination here and the discussion at the talk page with the article's creator, it appears that our nominator doesn't understand the obligations imposed by WP:PRESERVE. As pointed out, the article is *NOT* about the Cranford Historical Preservation Advisory Board; it's about historic sites in the municipality, which are overseen by the Cranford Historical Preservation Advisory Board. The issues raised could be readily addressed by keeping the article exactly as is and renaming it to Historic sites in Cranford, New Jersey, a change that cold have been made in a few seconds. Alternatively, with slightly more effort, the nominator could have suggested that the content in the article be merged to the parent article Cranford, New Jersey and this article turned into a redirect. That neither option was either considered or proposed is rather disappointing coming from an editor with more than 60,000 edits. Wikipedia deserves better. Alansohn (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I love it when somebody is sooo out of arguments that he goes on the attack instead of doing something useful. The Banner talk 00:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW: WP:PRESERVE is a guideline, an advice. Not a law carved in stone. The Banner talk 00:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I love it when some editor pushes to delete an article and argues that he is doing something useful. I'd excuse your arrogance and blame simple ignorance, but an editor with more than 60,000 edits should be aware that WP:PRESERVE is part of Editing policy, which as it turns is actually a policy that states rather clearly that you have an affirmative obligation to Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. As an editor who spends a rather disturbing amount of time trying to save our village by destroying it, you may also want to review your obligations under Deletion policy, yet another policy that hasn't been observed here. Drop the pompous attitude and start doing what Wikipedia policy requires you to do. Alansohn (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL, by now I have done constructive edits on that article than you have (1 edit fixing links to disambiguation pages). But you want to play it personal? Fine, with me. Keep on going with your policy/guideline waving. The Banner  talk 08:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename and repurpose as Historic sites in Cranford, New Jersey. It seems to cover buildings preserved by the Board and other historical sites there.  I suspect that merging to the town would unbalance the article on it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename Historic sites in Cranford, New Jersey as per WP:PRESERVE, noting that his town has a number of notable historic sites and buildings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename/repurpose as above. This is a plausible redirect to a notable topic. Neutralitytalk 19:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW And WP:TROUT to Nom, not for what appears to be a good-faith if unnecessary nomination, but for doubling down with 2 snarky comments that are WP:DISRUPT because they caused another editors to roll over a discussion that could have been closed.   2nd time in as many days that I have come upon user User:The Banner being disruptive and WP:BATTLEGROUND at AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * /me presents mirror to E.M.Gregory. Your attacks are not in anyway useful for the encyclopaedia or this article. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is, of course, possible to be WP:CIVIL to fellow editors, even to apologize fir rudeness, but in the 2 times we have met, I have been astonished not only by your WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior, but by the way you double down when called on it. And it is WP:DISRUPT as well as making WP an unpleasant place.  Disagreements do not have to be snarky attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.