Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blocher's Run

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. There is consensus that deletion isn't required, however it's not clear, that a separate article is warranted or not. A merge discussion can take place at the article talk page (if necessary). (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocher's Run

[edit]
Blocher's Run (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to lack enough notability to justify its own article. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 22:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Although the stream wasn't the focus of major fighting, the cover that it and its woods provided seems to have been of some tactical significance. However, that should be included in Battle of Gettysburg, First Day; it's not enough to sustain a free-standing article. The hydrological and geographic information can be left out, as irrelevant to whatever independent notability the watercourse may possess. Ammodramus (talk) 01:32, 13 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral My main interest when it comes to whether a short article should be deleted is if there is more to write about. Did this stream pose any tactical importance during the famous battle? Is it discussed in any independent work? Mr. Anon515 06:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I urge the nominator, in the strongest possible terms, to hold back from ever considering making another nomination for deletion, unless they learn how to do a web search first, to determine whether or not WP:Reliable sources cover the topic of the article. Just a few seconds showed me RS existed. I added three references. Geo Swan (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Keep/Merge. It is identified as a place name by a reliable source. Such gazetteer content is not restricted by WP:N. Tens of thousands of long-existing Wikipedia articles could be deleted by applying WP:N to them in its 2012 form. patsw (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to something like List of geographic features at Gettysburg. The article is short, and the only way to grow it is to talk about it relative to the battle itself, which I'm sure is already duplicated elsewhere. It is still a searchable term , and thus a merge with redirect to such a list (providing a kind of glossary for the reader) could keep all the text and sourcing already there as needed. In contrast to patsw's comment, it is not that WP:N and a gazeteer function conflict; in reality, it is more that we allow populated places (recognized by governments) to stay because there's a presumption that people living in that place can ultimately provide sources for that place; for localized geographic features, that can likely never occur, and hence there's no automatic allowance. We still serve the gazetteer function by leaving the searchable redirect behind, of course. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. When writing lack of notability do you mean lack of importance to the Battle of Gettysburg or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by patsw (talk • contribs)
    • For me, it's "lack of notability per WP:N" - there is not enough significant coverage from secondary sources to explain why this needs a separate article. It doesn't matter if it is "important", because notability is not about importance. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to know from the nominator (or other Delete voters) if it is a problem with "significant coverage" or with the "importance" (or "significance") of the place. I think the coverage provided by the references is significant enough -- is there a dispute that the text is not supported by the cites? I also want to understand the application of principle here. For example, Barlow Knoll was not nominated and yet has the substantially the same references. patsw (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this article due to the importance/significance of the place: I have read a couple dozen of books and articles on the battle and in none of these books this place is not even mentioned as playing any kind of role in the battle. Wild Wolf (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But another editor found books which do mention the place and created the article and met the threshold of significant coverage with cites. The article doesn't make a claim that it played a significant role in the battle. patsw (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wild Wolf, Patsw raises a very good point. We all accept that you have a special knowkedge of Gettysburg, and you honestly thought there were no references to support an article. However, although I am not an expert on Gettysburg, I did find some references. So, did you consider modifying your position, now that you know references do exist?

    One of those references desrribed the role of Blocker's Run in four separate sections. Let me be frank. As I read those passages, and those in the other references, I thought several paragraphs could be added to the article, reflecting the role the references said the stream played in the battle. I considered trying to add that paragraph myself. I didn't however, as in order to do so I would need to learn more about Gettysburg. I am not an American. I'd rather an American, or someone with an expertise in Gettysburg did that expansion.

    Since you do have that expertise in Gettysburg, if it hasn't already occurred to you, may I suggest you seem to be the ideal person, to read those passages, and use your expertise to desribe the stream's role. Geo Swan (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that it is referenced in several works. However, I was questioning wheter this particular stream is notable enough to have a stand-alone article. From what I've looked up, at most only minor skirmishing took place along it for only a brief period of time. This skirmishing does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Lasting effects standards as I understand it. The other reasoned I questioned it was that I failed to see how this is a signigicant geographical feature, even at a local or historical level. Wild Wolf (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - into Gettysburg battlefield or similar. The question here is not whether Wikipedia should discuss this stream or not... the issue is whether it should have a stand-alone article devoted to it. Information is always best when presented in context... the existence of this stream is trivial, except in the context of the civil war battlefield. Placed in the context of the battlefield it is worth mentioning. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gettysburg Battlefield. Agree with Blueboar and also see my comment on Excelsior Field above. Unles ownership this stream was vital to the outcome of the battle or is a major geographical feature of Pennsylvania (like the Susquehanna River), it should be merged. Mad Man American (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  This is a part of the gazetteer, good factoring is a valuable skill for an editor, somewhere we have gotten lost in non-essentials by claiming that articles must be capable of growing, or that it is a good idea to force simple factorable ideas into a confounded context.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly agree with Unscintillating. Once Wild Wolf, or someone else with an interest in the Battle of Gettysburg, incorporates what the references say about the stream, the article will be about four paragraphs long. That is plenty, provided there are WP:RS -- and there are RS.

      So, why shouldn't the info about Blocher's Run be incorporated ino an article about the Geography of the battle? This suggestion exposes several misunderstandings of what makes the wikipedia powerful:

      1. clicking on a link is faster than scrolling around a big omnibus article.
      2. when a reader sees a link to, let's say Blocher's Run, or Garrison Creek, they are offered a choice. Do they want to go read about the stream, or keeping reading the context that surrounds the link? Merging strips this choice from our readers. This is a bad thing.
      3. We should all take advantage of our watchlists. A reader could be interested in Blocher'r Run, but not the battle, or the other landmarks. So long as there is a separate aricle a reader can have just the topic they are interested in on their watchlist. But if the article is merged most of the hits on their watchlist will be irrelevant to them. This is a bad thing.
      4. We should all take advantage of the "what links here" button. So long as articles are focussed on just one topic this button is useful. But when articlkes stqrt talking about muliple topics the usefulness of the "what links here" button is very seriously eroded.
      5. Lots of merges are disasters. It is pretty frequent that no merging takes place after a merge oonclusion. It is pretty frequent to see one of the merge fans spends two minutes pasting the article to be merged in as a subsection of the target article, making no effort whatsover to do an intelligent merge. It is extemely common to see a third person come along later, and trim out the merged material, as they see it as "offtopic". Geo Swan (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gettysburg Battlefield. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gettysburg Battlefield. For same reason as Anderson's assault.67.239.100.244 (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gettysburg Battlefield. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Streams are generally considered notable, and this one has historical significance and several references. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 08:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Blueboar and Masem. I am not aware that streams have automatic notability. Unscintillating, I do not understand what you're trying to mean. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note to nom -- When you nominate an article for deletion, and 16 of the 17 !voters agree that the text of the article should be kept in some form (whether by a Keep or a Merge), and the 17th is just a weak delete (and that, before sources are added--and even then, his explanation sounds like a merge !vote), there may be a message in it for you. I hope that this feedback will inform your future nomination activity.
I also see that through this moment, in your wikipedia career you've !voted at 23 AfDs, all delete !votes (which is fine in and of itself), most as the nom. But -- only 1 of those AfDs ended up as a redirect, and none of them were closed as a delete. That hasn't seemed to slow your nominations, but perhaps you might give thought as to whether it should.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:55, 25 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blocher%27s_Run&oldid=1255446366"