Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anderson's assault

Anderson's assault

Anderson's assault (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) 14:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• This already IS covered in Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. There is no justification to splinter the description of Longstreet's second day attacks into multiple articles. The strategic and tactical description of the Battle of Gettysburg has already been split into an overview article, nine major subarticles (first day, second day, Cemetery Hill, Culp's Hill, Little Round Top, third day cavalry battles, Pickett's Charge, Union OOB, Confederate OOB), and two campaign articles. This is substantially more detail than is written for any other American Civil War battle. Breaking down the description into even more subarticles does not make it any easier for the reader to understand this important battle. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • the above 18:58 rationale is invalid, as this topic is a sub-article properly created per WP:MOS for splintering articles about distinct topics from parent articles, and it has an appropriate level of detail that is the same as the parent article (which is the one with too much detail by violating the WP style by not summarizing the topic.) Additionally, the poster of the above rationale admits that [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of East Cemetery Hill|"The Second Day article is deliberately structured to omit any of the battle details" (Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)), so for consistency the Anderson's details need their own article. Target for Today (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, the 18:58 author in a previous Merge rationalization clearly such topics are encyclopedia-worthy , where he endorses the information being in a forthcoming encyclopedia. Conflict of interest (e.g., is he a contributor to that for-profit encyclopedia)? That would explain his opposition to this notable article--why buy an encyclopedia if one can see the topics online for free? Target for Today (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 19:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 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) 23:51, 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) 00:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. I agree with the nominator's statement -- there's no need for an attack by a single division to have a separate article. More context and interrelation with surrounding events is provided if it's presented as part of a greater article. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • the above 10:26 rationale is invalid, as the number of troops engaged in this combat does not make the topic non-notable--actually the reverse. Wikipedia already identifies the military engagement is notable in the lengthy section of the parent article, and has the same rationale for keeping as the combat described with the same detail as at The Peach Orchard, which are: Target for Today (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: …notable historical battle. Really? - …Very odd nomination. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Historical significance makes it notable. I'm puzzled by this nomination. Moriori (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep 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)
  • Strong Keep Obvious notability. CallawayRox (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Well documented article about details of a crucial battle of the American Civil War. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Snow Keep - Per sources already in the article, and [books identifying notability]. Topic clearly passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Snow keep. Per all of the above. Time to stop wasting time on this afd.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. This seems a no-brainer: one of the most hotly contested portions of one of America's most significant battlefields. Ammodramus (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)
• Obvious Keep - Just as Battle of East Cemetery Hill (above) was adjuticated as meeting Wikipedia's inclusion and notability criteria and is a proper sub-article of the oversize parent article, which the opposers admit is a parent article. Target for Today (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)