Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biesecker 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 merge to Gettysburg Battlefield. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 22:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biesecker Woods

(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) 21:56, 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]

Keep/merge This and other locations at the battle of Gettysburg are documented in numerous works such as Gettysburg: a battlefield guide. Whether they should be split into separate articles or be sections of a larger article is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable fighting took place here nor any other event of importance, so fail to see how this is any more notable than any other spot of woods in Pennsylvania. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many sources mention Biesecker Woods, but I don't find any detailed coverage of it. It seems to lack independent notability: it wasn't a focus of major fighting, or the site of someone's headquarters, or the like. I suspect that if the article were kept, it would never get beyond a minimal stub; that most readers who arrived at it would be following a Wikilink from one of the main Gettysburg articles; and that those readers would be irritated at having followed a link to an article with no additional useful information. Ammodramus (talk) 01:17, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:02, 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) 15:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've read several books on Gettysburg and I've never seen any mention of this place in them. Don't see why we need an article on this at all. Mad Man American (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Merge as per MarcusBritish. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into Gettysburg battlefield. The question here is not whether Wikipedia should discuss Bieseker Woods or not... the issue is whether it should have a stand-alone article devoted to it. Information is best presented in context... the existence of this clump of trees is trivial, except in the context of the civil war battlefield. Placed in the context of the battlefield it is worth mentioning. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 20 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.