Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghosts of Gettysburg (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Sandstein 09:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts of Gettysburg[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Okay... wow. The contents of the article are basically fringe theories and effectively false information from a nonnotable book. The article was nominated for deletion in 2009 and was then apparently "enclopaedified" by an admin that was later blocked for being a sockpuppet. The entire article is basically just junk. We probably do need an article about this, as a search reveals promising links. Noah ^💬 22:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:FRINGE pseudoscientific ghost hunting POV assumes that spirits of the dead haunt Gettysburg, sourced entirely to a WP:SELFPUB book, which the article heavily promotes. Perhaps there are reliable sources that correctly treat the topic as folklore and legend, but I have not seen any. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The actual Battle of Gettysburg is a notable topic with an extensive article on Wikipedia and an abundance of excellent sources. The topic of this article would be unlikely to merit even a single sentence in the main Battle of Gettysburg article, and even then only if they could provide a large number of reliable sources showing that there is a widespread belief in ghosts on the battlefield, and preferably scholarly or other secondary sources related to those ghost stories, emphasis on stories. If ghost stories had a notable and significant effect on soldiers' behavior during the battle, or on the behavior of townsfolk who cleaned up the thousands of bodies, or if it has some documented effect on the town itself (ie local traditions of offerings to ward off/appease ghosts). Wikipedia is not going to document actual ghosts. Ghost stories, as an anthropological concept, as mythology, as historiography, etc may be documented if they are notable, significant, and documented. Consider that we do not take a formal position on, say, the Resurrection of Jesus, but we do note that it is a component of a major world religion, and we cite the ways that this belief has been documented to have influenced various historical figures and events. So, with this in mind, can we document some manner in which the belief in ghosts has influenced anything related to the Battle of Gettysburg, the current battlefield/memorial/park/monuments, or the local town, either historical or modern-day? If so, a sentence about "belief in ghosts from the battle..." might be an appropriate addition to the relevant page. Even then, remember WP:UNDUE, and consider that even a single sentence on the main battle article carries considerable weight. Hyperion35 (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. / Merge. Topic already has coverage at Reportedly haunted locations in Pennsylvania and a mention at List of reportedly haunted locations in the United_States#Pennsylvania. Might be suitable for a stand alone article someday if there are ever multiple extraordinarily evidenced sightings with supporting mainstream media references. 5Q5|^✉ 12:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my original Delete to Merge. Set up a redirect of Ghosts of Gettysburg to Ghosts of the American Civil War where there is already a full paragraph going on the topic. If the section there becomes too large, then bring back a stand-alone article, either same title or with a new one. That makes three existing articles that already discuss the topic. The Ghosts of the American Civil Wat article can be found linked on List of ghosts. 5Q5|^✉ 12:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could support this, yes. If there is already an article on Ghosts of the Civil War, then it would make sense to have a section about the Battle of Gettysburg. And realistically, anything relating to Gettysburg in the context of an article on the Civil War deserves plenty of due weight, so no real worry if that section of that article is longer, this is kinda the most important and pivotal battle of the war after all. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although ghosts aren't real so it's not actually haunted, the topic itself is notable. National Geographic, Baltimore Sun, CNN and a pile more reliable sources discuss it. There's also about a million books on the subject. That said, the article is in pretty poor shape right now but I don't believe that is a reason for deletion since it's an obviously notable topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not every topic that is written about merits an encyclopedia article. This sort of thing belongs in magazines. None of those sources discuss ghosts, merely people reporting ghosts, which is no basis for an article. ----Pontificalibus 16:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, so for me that meets WP:GNG. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is a notability standard, not an inclusion standard. For example WP:NOT sets out some of the things that aren’t to be included regardless of notability. Even if you did take GNG as the only guideline that guaranteed inclusion, the three sources you give aren’t sufficient. CNN features a single quote from someone who said they got shot there, National Geographic features a first-person account from someone who went on a walking ghost tour there and didn’t see any ghosts, and the Baltimore Sun article is a promotional piece for walking ghost tours, even giving the price and booking number.—--Pontificalibus 17:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those were just the three that I posted. There are piles more. I don't expect I'll be convincing you though, so like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The battlefield itself is highly notable and one of the most famous places in the USA. But this would also place a much higher bar for notability about ghost stories on the battlefield. I don't see how these ghost stories would be notable absent the connection to the battlefield, but I also don't see how they become notable as compared to so much else about this battlefield. Like I said, I don't see how this deserves its own article, so my question is how would this fit into the Battle of Gettysburg topic? Barring that, is there sufficient RS for a broader article on Civil War ghost stories? I seem to rememeber reading something about rather-well developed and documented mythology about ghosts that haunted No Man's Land during WWI, stories that were passed between soldiers during the war. That sort of thing could conceivably merit its own article, especially if there were, say, academic articles discussing and dissecting various cultural aspects, origins, and impacts of those stories. Do you see the difference between that and this single article about ghost stories on a single battlefield? Hyperion35 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and expand on this more tomorrow but I think that the folklore and tourism aspect of it are notable enough for an article on their own. Perhaps Ghost tourism in Gettysburg would be a better name for the article. This provides an example of the type of coverage we should have on the topic. Just because the article is currently trash does not mean there's not a good article waiting in the wings. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in general this topic is different from the Battle of Gettysburg. That is why the location was originally notable but is not currently the only reason it is. Books like Gettysburg: Memory, Market, and an American Shrine support me in that. I have in mind an article the history of ghost folklore building up around Gettysburg moving to the modern folklore with ghost tourism and commercialization [1] [2]. The current article is definitely not good, and is basically just a list of spoooooooky things all cited to a book that shares a name with the article, but the topic of ghostlore surrounding Gettysburg is itself notable. We also do have a broader article on civil war ghost stories located at Ghosts of the American Civil War. We can all agree that ghosts aren't real, but those ghost stories are a notable part of American folklore and the commercialization around them adds another notable element. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:5P1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or magazine.----Pontificalibus 16:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article could be converted into an article about the book "Ghosts of Gettysburg", if indeed the book itself is notable. However, as the article stands now, it gives an unacceptable sheen of legitimacy to the actual existence of ghosts as a means of promoting the book. In my mind, it fails WP:NHOAX and should be converted or deleted Rogermx (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article on a WP:FRINGE subject, sourced entirely to a single book which, itself, does not seem like it is a reliable source. While the creation of an article on the topic could potentially be created that is actually encyclopedic (though I have my doubts), this current iteration of the article should not be kept. Rorshacma (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2021 (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.