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 redirect to Grant Comes East. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gunpowder River[edit]

Battle of Gunpowder River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I believe this partial plot summary of a fictional work violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). I have nominated it separately because it is about an "alternative history" work rather than a pure fictional work. It also cites other sources but these are for original research-type claims such as the size of the Army of Northern Virginia at a particular time, not for out of universe works that reference this fictional battle. It has been proposed for a merge, but the plot summary of the work is already ample and a detailed review of each fictional battle in an alternate history is not needed. Savidan 19:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced original research. This sort of in-universe book synopsis is especially dangerous because it makes claims based on real-world sourcing, yet all action takes place only in the mind of its author. BusterD (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Presumption that description is based on the fictional work is undercut by insertion of links to other sources, ergo, an original synthesis of real-world and fictional sources not intended by the primary work. While I take no issue of redirecting this particular search term, it appears as though there's a slightly pointy conversation about the value of redirects going on between the lines below. I'm wondering whether this is the appropriate forum for a general discussion on what seems "inexplicable" or not. BusterD (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Grant Comes East as a valid search term. 76.66.192.91 (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Grant Comes East. This article contains a combination of real-world information coupled with plot summary, making a great terrarium for WP:OR fungus. --EEMIV (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Another example of excessive detail. (not or, for a straight description like this is presumed to be based on the work of fiction itself) There is no disagreement that this is not acceptable--and the redirect could have been done without coming here, after getting consensus on the talk page. That the nom did not consider the possibility of a redirect seems inexplicable. DGG (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — No, we do not need a redirect for every phrase in every bit of fiction. Jack Merridew 08:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  we need a redirect on every named plot element. Why not? What harm to you think it does? DGG (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There are essentially an infinite number of them. The choice of associating a redirect title is subjective and open to bias; the First-mover advantage I referred to elsewhere. There will often be many possible targets for rather generic terms. It is better to allow a search algorithm to percolate likely targets dynamically. Compare argumentative editors bickering about targets with advertisers bidding on Google AdWords; the high bidders/loudest squawk(or best edit warrior) wins. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite any fondness for the history of Daniel Sickles (or his spouse) I may have, I am afraid I agree that this article, at this level of detail, written this way, doesn't belong here. Transwiki to an appropriate place, boil this very long plot summary down and merge the resulting paragraph or so to Grant Comes East, leaving a redirect behind. (note to my esteemed colleague Mr, Merridew, DGG is right, there is no harm in using up redirect name space this way, it's not likely this particular turn of phrase would be ever used for anything else, and if it were, we can have a new bunfight then... good times. ) ++Lar: t/c 02:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This article is not a particularly good example of the issue, but there are better: see my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood War or check Kressler and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 13#Kressler → List of Stargate SG-1 episodes#Season 9. Whomever first stakes a claim to a title, immediately gets one of the top spots in Google for that name. It sets the project in motion in a particular direction and it may not be the right one; it is driven by fandom, not gravitas or appropriateness to the encyclopædia. We might have a chat with Jonathan about the search engine aspects of this.
  This concern is rather central to my concern about crap on wikipedia; there is only one article namespace and it is fought over by the forces of reality and the fictional armies of the benighted cultures. Compare Category:American culture and Category:Balinese culture. Who is more cultured? Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not following you. What is the harm in having a redirect here? If in future there turns out there is a topic more notable, then the redirect becomes a dab, and if still more notable, that topic gets the name. As long as the discussion (of moving) isn't itself distorted, redirects do no harm whatever. But this may be a policy discussion. ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not really talking about this particular article. Having a redirect on this site, one Google pays a lot of attention to, serves to define a term and it's meaning. The world is full of phrases; an essentially infinite number of them. We should ignore most of them and allow search algorithms to dynamically allow user to select amongst results. Would Google be better if the default button was "I'm feeling Lucky?" That's what a lot of redirects amount to. Who's to say that a user searching for Battle of Gunpowder River wants to land at Grant Comes East (once this fictional article is deleted;) — mebbe they would be more interested in Joppatowne, Maryland, Newt Gingrich, or Gunpowder River. Redirects are about making choices for people; a list of search results is about offering them choices. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Completely Delete has 19 Google hits. Abductive (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I got 18 ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:06, 21 July 2009 (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.