Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Tabernacle, New Jersey

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 merge to Tabernacle Township, New Jersey. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of Tabernacle, New Jersey

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

Possibly merge to Tabernacle Township, New Jersey. Not sourced, either. Tinton5 (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per #1, no deletion rationale provided or proposed. Whether or not it is currently sourced has nothing to do with whether it should be deleted (or merged, for that matter). Per WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE, it was a mistake to list this at AFD without trying (or even discussing) merger first (are AFD instructions not clear enough?). There has been no talk page discussion for this article, nor at Talk:Tabernacle Township, New Jersey, nor was the sole creator of this article contacted except to notify him of this deletion discussion a day after the article was posted. That's absolutely not how things should be done here, and I can't help but wonder if that is representative of why Wikipedia is having trouble gaining new editors and retaining old ones. If you see that an article about a seemingly viable topic needs further development, help with that process by doing some research, writing, and editing, or even just merging; communicate some concerns or proposals to the contributor on their talk page; tag it for the attention of others who might be more interested or knowledgeable about it; or leave it alone so someone else can deal with it properly. postdlf (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge clearly this info has merit and was created in good faith. It easily would fit into the Tabernacle Township, New Jersey article.

BTW, fully agree w/ above about procedure here.Djflem (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. The history of this township belongs in the township article; it is not extensive enough to warrant a separate article. I would have said "merge" but since this article has no references, none of the information is verified. Any historical information which can be sourced or verified should be added to the township article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The requirement is verifiable, not verified. We do not remove material just because it is not presently referenced. Unless we have good reason to doubt it, there's no reason to remove it. Merge it, tag it for references, and let editors develop it and research it further. postdlf (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would also be an option. --MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:04, 21 January 2012 (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.