Talk:Dragon Springs

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: Falun Gong / New religious movements Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Falun Gong work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Low-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Falun Gong, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Redirect is against consensus

@Onel5969: this page was created because there was consensus at Falun Gong to separate out the Dragon Springs section into its own article, are you challenging that consensus? I also think if you take a minute to look that you will find that much of the pertinent information is not actually to be found at FG at all. Also how the heck does this topic not pass WP:GNG? There is more than enough coverage for a stand-alone page, if you want to nominate it for a merge do so but unilateral redirects dont cut the mustard in a consensus based system, even when an admin does it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back, There is no discussion regarding separating out this section at Falun Gong. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There in fact was. Where's the discussion about redirecting the page and deleting all the information here? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodofox, please point out the discussion. I can't find it in the history of Falun Gong talk page. The redirect is as per policy, see WP:SPLIT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Falun Gong talk page archives when the article was initially composed. This article clearly contains far more information than the Falun Gong's page coverage, and the reason this was split off is because it was taking over the article. Pouring all this back into that article will result in the same problem. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only relevent section of WP:SPLIT I see is "A contested bold split may be reverted; however it is not always appropriate to redirect the new article to the old as the new article may stand on its own, even if the main article that it came from is not split.” Which part were you thinking of? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Binksternet: who very helpfully created this page as a result of the discussion we were having at the time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Your edit summary reads "The AfD is consensus. Further disruptive editing might get you blocked.” what AfD are you referring to? None are currently linked on this talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:onel5969 should not be assuming there is a concluded AfD result representing consensus. This article has not (yet) been nominated for deletion. Regarding the origin of this article, the time when we determined that it would be a good idea to have a standalone article on Dragon Springs was July 6, represented by this diff showing a proposal by Horse Eye Jack followed by a positive response from me.

If someone nominates this article for deletion, they will have an uphill battle against strong sources which discuss the place in depth, satisfying general notability guidelines for keeping articles. The AP piece and the Business Insider piece are enough by themselves, establishing a topic of at least national interest, certainly greater than the regional newspapers of rural New York. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]