Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James McCown

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James McCown

[edit]
James McCown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable army officer -- highest rank was Colonel. No substantial coverage--just inclusions in group histories. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Full disclosure, I wrote the article.) And to be honest I'm surprised and disappointed in this nomination, User:DGG. This is not a MySpace band or a D-list video game character or some obscure recent person. This is an actual historical figure who was involved in and shaped important historical events. If our mission is not to include material on important actors in major historical events, what we even here for? The American Civil War was really important! The 5th Regiment of Missouri Infantry was an important outfit! They fought in some really important battles. James McCown led them throughout the war from start to finish, from Corinth to Vicksburg to Atlanta to Franklin and Nashville to the bitter end at Mobile.
It's true the sources are poor (although sufficient for a reasonable-size article of a few paragraphs), but that's a problem with the sources not the subject. I'll bet that Westerners in Gray: The Men and Missions of the Elite Fifth Missouri Infantry Regiment has lots more, but I don't have that book at hand. But maybe someone who does will come along and add to the article -- unless we, you know, delete it.
I'm just... I'm quite frankly having trouble adjusting to what seems to be a kind of new ethos here, that our job here at the Wikipedia is to trim out existing information so that readers will have less access to information. Why? Are our printing costs getting too high? You know, every time someone looks for information in the Wikipedia and can't find it, a kitten dies.
It's not that we shouldn't get rid of articles. There are several articles made every day that don't belong -- local band, author with a couple non-notable books, local store, somebody's elementary school. Amateur ballplayer, somebody's app, local neighborhood figure. Promotional articles. Fine. James McCown is none of these. He is an actual historical figure on whom material is available even now, 150 years after he died, because people (rightly or wrongly) consider even the details of American history to be important. Herostratus (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is based on the accepted WP:MIL requirement that a person be either a general officer or involved in a major way in something important [etc.], none of which is met here, along with our standard requirement for substantial sourcing. Whatever the relationship of this sng and the gng , neither are met. The significance of these formal requirements is to provide a way to answer the question, what possibly makes him more notable than every Colonel in that war? The reason for asking that question is the basic principle, NOTINDISCRIMINATE.
It is certainly a possibility to set the level higher or lower. Personally, I would have set it higher than the US rank of brigadier general, but since the consensus is to accept them, I do also. Personally, I would count rank and significant events as in the SNG as more important than sourcing (beyond the minimal level of verifiability), but as this is uncertain, I look at both.
The reason we have the basic policy of NOTINDISCRIMINATE is to look like an encyclopedia, which is different from a list of everyone. The line is always going to be arbitrary. The point of an encyclopedia is not that it contains whatever someone can find a source for, but that it have some level of significance. Myself, I think it important to be consistent--at least to some extent. I would very gladly have articles for everything in my own sphere of interest for which I could possibly scrape sourcing together; if I really pushed, I could carry that quite far in the direction of local for my neighborhood (or, for that matter , my extended family or my classmates or my teachers or colleagues.,and I suspect that about a third of them would actually be accepted, if only by accident.) I don't think that's a reasonable way to build a community project. A community project needs community standards. We are already so wildly erratic in our coverage that my view is we should complete what is within our present scope, and leave what is beyond it to specialized resources. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. OK, I looked at WP:SOLDIER. It's basically OK. I think you're being too strict in applying it though.
I am on board with just being a peacetime colonel not by itself being enough to merit an article, usually. I think there's a huge difference between a peacetime colonel and someone who led a regiment in many of the major campaigns of the the most important war in American history, though.
And in fact the rule does say (point 4) "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign" which McCown did many times. Depending on how you take it; all those terms ("important", "significant", "major") are subjective.
Although point 5 then says "Commanded... in combat... a divisional formation or higher" which McCown did not. Does point 5 negate point 4? Does point 5 imply that "important role" has to be "division command"? Not really; you could be just a company commander, and if your company held a crucial bridge in an important battle, that would be an "important role" I guess. (And in fact John Howard, who was only a major and company commander, did exactly that (Pegasus Bridge) and has an article because of it.)
I don't know if McCown's command played that kind of important role in some or any of his many battles. I'd be surprised if they didn't. It says here that the 5th was "one of the Civil War’s most decorated... infantry regiments" and if that's true they weren't skulking in the rear. There are books that would tell us more (Bevier's A History of the First and Second Missouri Confederate Brigades for instance) but I don't have them. Herostratus (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well but as I noted above WP:SOLDIER includes "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign". There's no question that the man was in many major battles and campaigns. I'd say that commanding a regiment is an "important role".
As far as WP:GNG, thanks for the link as I did not realize that (a small part) of Westerners In Gray is online. The part that is online has like two pages on McCowns background and early life (pages 7-9); that alone is sufficient to meet GNG. I am quite confident that there are swaths of material on McCowns military activities later in the book, but I cant access those parts. But just the part that is accessible... given this new material, you'd have to bend WP:GNG past the breaking point to hold that that the man doesn't meet GNG. Herostratus (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't we count coverage in 150+ year old newspapers? Lepricavark (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Many officers in the civil war who had interesting military and non-military careers, such as McCown, are definitely of interest to our editors and readers. In general, and this individual in particular, there is a good deal of contemporary (ie 1800s) news coverage about these individuals, as they were usually community leaders of one sort or another. Burgess and Burgess 2009, the three "150+ year old newspaper" articles currently cited, and the Missouri Historical Review (1913-1914) article give some indication of coverage from over a century ago. In modern sources, McCown is given one or two paragraph biographies with a picture in Piston 2009, Garrett 2009, and in a local history by Roberts and Roberts 2012. Tucker 1995 discusses his role in the war, which does seem to have been at least nearly "important role in a significant military event". Ultimately, I !vote keep based on GNG given the Piston and Garrett coverage in particular. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a general point, even if the golden rule can't be met with sources that are online or available to most editors, my opinion is that AfD comments should be in part about one's belief about the likelyhood of achieving notability rather than the sources currently in the article. I remember once reading that subject specific guidelines are (or at least used to be) based on the idea that if a subject meets them, they are likely to meet GNG, even if the sources aren't immediately found (that is, they are shortcuts to use when sources are unavailable for individuals who are extremely likely to be notable, and not meant to exclude individuals who don't meet the recommendations). I agree with Herostratus that while the sources were initially poorer than they currently are, it is not a surprise that the sources were improved and I would not be surprised if more sources are added later. As regards to Herostratus' comment about a new ethos, my AGF assumption/hope is that those arguing against retention of the article did not think that better sources could be found or that they do not agree with me that what they found met GNG or they were unable to find sources such as those that have since been added. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Thanks mostly to your work I think the subject now meets WP:GNG, pretty clearly, and I call on future commentors and the closer to make note of this. (And even if you wanted to say this are on the borderline and debatable (I don't think it even is anymore), this is a historical figure; as an encyclopedia I think we ought to give a little more shrift to "serious" subjects such as history, geography, science, etc. than we might to videogame characters etc., so the benefit of any doubt would go to retaining the material in this case.) Herostratus (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I strongly echo Newyorkbrad's sentiment here. This isn't a stub, but a developed, informative article. The notability of the subject may be borderline, but I believe we should err on the side of keeping an article such as this one. Lepricavark (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly enough material to write a good article with. I'm not all that familiar with this admittedly obscure conflict, but he 5th Missouri Infantry seems to have been famous enough to write book about. Subject seems to have participated in reasonably famous battles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If an individual measures up to the criteria of the GNG then SOLDIER is irrelevant. Furthermore, my confidence in how those on the MILITARY WIKIPROJECT manage and interpret SOLDIER has been completely eroded. Those on the MILITARY WIKIPROJECT usually argue that a General is notable, even if there aren't sufficient references for him to measure up to GNG. But, a few years ago, I saw multiple individuals who usually took that line arguing for the deletion of an article on a rogue General, a guy, moreover, who probably did measure up to GNG. In that AFD these fans of the military took the complete opposite position they usually took. They had suddently decided that the exception to GNG they had alwasy argued SOLDIER had for Generals, didn't apply to one-star Brigadier Generals.

    Anyhow, hats off to those who found the additional references who established McCown measures up to the GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep generally following the reasoning of Smmurphy and Newyorkbrad. I find the article informative, encyclopedic-ally written, and WP:V. It is of interest to a relatively large set of readers. I do not see how the encyclopedia would be improved with the deletion of this article. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the fact that the subject mater and citations are many years old should have no effect on the notability of the article. The above keep votes have already illustrated the reasons to keep this article well enough. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_McCown&oldid=1137941341"