Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Wyandanch (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Wyandanch, New York. I'm also relying on the previous AFD in this close. There is a clear consensus that thsi subject does not require a standalone article and that spas are subverting wikipedia policies for their preferred outcome - the two articles. We already had a consensus that this wasn't required and the best way forward between deletion, merge and keep is to protect the redirect to the main article so that pruning and merging can take place at one location. I'm discounting the delete arguments for attributation purposes as the existing consensus to merge requires the history. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Wyandanch[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Wyandanch. At that time, the consensus was to merge whatever usable content into Wyandanch, New York and be done with it. Eight months later, at the beginning of May 2011, the title was redirected over to the target article to comply with the AFD, under the assumption that any content that was worthy of merging would have been done by then. An IP editor has since reverted the redirect on three occasions. So it seems, with the original AFD's result being disputed, that we need to have a new discussion about the fate of this article. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~This seems to be some kind of joke.~~ The article on this town of 10,000 has about as much historical information as I would expect in an encyclopedia article on a major nation. I'm glad that the citizens of Wyandanch love their town ~~and enjoy a good laugh,~~ but really that's not what WP is for. (Serious note: Wyandanch, New York has more than enough information on the town's history already, no need to merge in any more.) Borock (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep If, as it appears, content has been merged from this article, then the edit history is required for attribution. The matter has already been discussed here and the matter should now be dealt with by ordinary editing and dispute resolution per the template on the article which states, "If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use the destination article's talk page.". Colonel Warden (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, there was never any merging of content between the two articles, and just a redirecting of the title, since no merging of content had occurred, and operation under the assumption that if anything had been worth merging, it would have been done by then. If things had gone to plan, we wouldn't be here right now because everything would be following as the previous AFD had determined, and these edits would have gone into the parent article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Speedy Keep. The History of Wyandanch should never have been split away from the Wyandanch, New York article in the first place. This article details the complex history of a poor, defacto segregated African-American suburb on Long Island, which presently the federal, state, county and town governments are trying to rehabilitate with the "Wyandanch Rising" program. This historical information is available no where else and easily allows planners, sociologists, historians, government officials and the general public to understand the roots of its current ills. Deleting it would be a major disservice to this community and serves no useful purpose. Borock-this is no joke. This is very serious business. We had the same kind of "smear the community" remarks during the last deletion discussion. As Speedy Keep says, be positive and assist a constructive merger. Thanks to whoever recently spent considerable time creating endnotes for this informative article. ```Ldoughist24.184.230.106 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I assumed the article was a joke. When I saw a massive article about the history of a small town that was my impression. However after learning more I can see that the people behind the article are sincere about doing something good. I still think one article on Wyandanch is enough. Borock (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.