Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson's assault

(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) 15:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, although the material it duplicates is in Culp's Hill. Also see my remarks about Anderson's assault, above. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 19:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 23:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

That is not sufficient reason to bring the matter to AFD. WP:BEFORE states "C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. ... If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article.". The essential question here is whether this article title should be a redlink. It seems easy to find the phrase "Johnson's assault" used as a title in sources such as this and this demonstrates adequate notability. Whether we have this as a section in a larger article or as a separate article, we would still have a blue link for the phrase and so deletion is not appropriate. Warden (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Culp's Hill - eliminate duplication. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The duplication is at Culp's Hill, which is a parent article and by definition, is to only have a summary. Target for Today (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep For all the notability and other keep reasons above for Anderson's assault. Target for Today (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]