- 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 18:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Peach Orchard (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) 21:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 22:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: A notable battlefield for a notable historical battle. Really? - [1], [2], [3], [4]. Very odd nomination. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Historical significance makes it notable. I'm puzzled by this nomination. Moriori (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
per WP:NGEO; there's a ton written about the place. A WP:TROUT to an editor whose "main interest" is the Civil War. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Strong Keep Obvious notability. CallawayRox (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Well documented article about details of a crucial battle of the American Civil War. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep - Per sources already in the article, and links above provided by User:SL93. Topic clearly passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep. Per all of the above. Time to stop wasting time on this afd.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This seems a no-brainer: one of the most hotly contested portions of one of America's most significant battlefields. A lot of these Gettysburg-place articles merit deletion for their lack of independent notability, but this is emphatically not one of them. Ammodramus (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep At the time of the nomination, it already had ample coverage found and listed in the reference section. Dream Focus 21:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion for this and many other articles being deleted is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Gettysburg_articles Maybe some of the deletion nominations should be combined. Dream Focus 21:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge – into Gettysburg battlefield or similar. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 23:15, 13 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.