Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of East Cemetery Hill: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m categorized under Society topics |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
*'''Speedy Keep''' The nomination does not offer a sensible reason to delete, seeming to suggest merger or other restructuring. And the suggestion that the battle is not notable is utterly false as this engagement is covered in detail in numerous sources. For example, here's a complete [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kcSb6_16R6oC&pg=PA227 order of battle]. The nominator should please refrain from further nominations in this Gettysburg deletion spree as it seems clear that he is not following [[WP:BEFORE|deletion policy]]. [[User:Colonel Warden|Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 23:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Speedy Keep''' The nomination does not offer a sensible reason to delete, seeming to suggest merger or other restructuring. And the suggestion that the battle is not notable is utterly false as this engagement is covered in detail in numerous sources. For example, here's a complete [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kcSb6_16R6oC&pg=PA227 order of battle]. The nominator should please refrain from further nominations in this Gettysburg deletion spree as it seems clear that he is not following [[WP:BEFORE|deletion policy]]. [[User:Colonel Warden|Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 23:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
**I think the issue here is not if it can be referenced but if this is notable enough to have a seperete article from the Gettysburg article, which I believe is what Hal Jespersen is saying as well. Neither one of us believes that the battle needs to be covered in this much detail. (See the discussion [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Gettysburg articles|on the MILHIST talk page here]].) [[User:Wild Wolf|Wild Wolf]] ([[User talk:Wild Wolf|talk]]) 00:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
**I think the issue here is not if it can be referenced but if this is notable enough to have a seperete article from the Gettysburg article, which I believe is what Hal Jespersen is saying as well. Neither one of us believes that the battle needs to be covered in this much detail. (See the discussion [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Gettysburg articles|on the MILHIST talk page here]].) [[User:Wild Wolf|Wild Wolf]] ([[User talk:Wild Wolf|talk]]) 00:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' of course, since article clearly meets notability criteria and is a valid sub-article of the oversized [[Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day]], which has the same level of detail (via Jesperson et al edits-which establish notability) instead of the proper summary per WP:MOS. [[User:Target for Today|Target for Today]] ([[User talk:Target for Today|talk]]) 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:Article Rescue Squadron/Wikipedia deletion sorting/Gettysburg|B]] |
|||
Revision as of 20:17, 16 January 2012
- Battle of East Cemetery Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An attack by two brigades does not seem notable enough to have its own article. This could be covered just as well at Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day or at Cemetery Hill. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- This should probably be a merge recommendation. It overlaps substantially with Cemetery Hill. (The Second Day article is deliberately structured to omit any of the battle details on Cemetery Hill or Culp's Hill.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 15. Snotbot t • c » 23:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep The nomination does not offer a sensible reason to delete, seeming to suggest merger or other restructuring. And the suggestion that the battle is not notable is utterly false as this engagement is covered in detail in numerous sources. For example, here's a complete order of battle. The nominator should please refrain from further nominations in this Gettysburg deletion spree as it seems clear that he is not following deletion policy. Warden (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think the issue here is not if it can be referenced but if this is notable enough to have a seperete article from the Gettysburg article, which I believe is what Hal Jespersen is saying as well. Neither one of us believes that the battle needs to be covered in this much detail. (See the discussion on the MILHIST talk page here.) Wild Wolf (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep of course, since article clearly meets notability criteria and is a valid sub-article of the oversized Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day, which has the same level of detail (via Jesperson et al edits-which establish notability) instead of the proper summary per WP:MOS. Target for Today (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)