Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crawford's charge: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m categorized under Society topics |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
**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]]) 00:30, 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]]) 00:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Merge''' as per my comment above -- more context provided if part of the Second Day article. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 10:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Merge''' as per my comment above -- more context provided if part of the Second Day article. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 10:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Obvious Keep''' For all the notability and other keep reasons above for [[Anderson's assault]]. [[User:Target for Today|Target for Today]] ([[User talk:Target for Today|talk]]) 14:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
<noinclude>[[Category:Article Rescue Squadron/Wikipedia deletion sorting/Gettysburg|M]]</noinclude> |
|||
Revision as of 14:55, 22 January 2012
Crawford's charge
- Crawford's charge (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 a single division does not seem notable enough to have its own article. This could be covered just as well at Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. See my remarks about Anderson's assault, above. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep The topic is notable, being covered in numerous sources. The way in which the complex and extensively documented Battle of Gettysburg is structured for presentation here is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion and the nominator should please discuss that at the relevant pages for the battle. Please see WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 23:52, 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) 00:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge as per my comment above -- more context provided if part of the Second Day article. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Obvious Keep For all the notability and other keep reasons above for Anderson's assault. Target for Today (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)