Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winebrenner Run

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 a clear consensus, that no deletion is required. A merge discussion can take place at the articles talk page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winebrenner Run

(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) 21:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 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) 11:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the context of streams, we've been through this before and it's been established that every stream is notable, provided that there are references. Gjs238 (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability whatsoever apart from that associated with Battle of Gettysburg, so hydrologic and geographic data is largely irrelevant. Role in battle too minor to sustain a free-standing article of any length. If kept, this article would remain a minimal stub, whose primary function would be to irritate readers who clicked on the blue link at one of the main Gettysburg articles, and found no useful new information to justify their digression from the main article. Ammodramus (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See nothing in the article which says why this is so notable. Checked a couple books on Gettysburg and none of them mention it as playing a major role in the battle. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and the others for which we have no more than a paragraph. Each such paragraph should be included in Gettysburg Battlefield. Each redirect can be converted back into a free standing article when or if it gets enough good material.

Keep Streams are generally considered notable, and this one has historical significance. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a geological feature, this historically significant stream is worthy of its own article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 18 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.