Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spangler Woods


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Spangler Woods

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to lack enough notability to justify its own article. Wild Wolf (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Did you not look at the list of citations? It includes several reliable sources that touch on this road.  Any significant component of this most important of American Civil War battlefields will have gotten tons of coverage from military historians.  Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Historic site, notable from a US Civil War battle: . Edison (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. With apologies to User:Nyttend, calling Spangler Woods a "significant component" seems to be begging the question.  Sources don't suggest that anything of great significance in the battle occurred at this site (unlike, say, such foci of fighting as Little Round Top or the Peach Orchard&mdash;and I'll oppose the deletion of the latter article).  It seems unlikely that anyone would come to this article except by following a Wikilink from one of the main articles on the battle; and that reader would be annoyed by finding a stub with no additional information to justify the jump from the main article.  Ammodramus (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete For reason given by Ammodramus. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge – into Gettysburg battlefield or similar.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 23:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

 
 * 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? 14:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep A well documented part of the Gettysburg Battlefield, but perhaps there could be more information added from the inline citations, or other sources. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. Meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Location includes several monuments to signify the location of notable events so topic meets notability.  As a result the site is indeed (the deeds being the battle activities at the site and the placement of the signifying historic district contributing structures) a "significant component" of the battlefield which any person can see when they actually visit it (notice the largest equestrian memorial in the entire county).  184.99.7.20 (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2012 (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.