Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skirmish at Alcorn's Distillery

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Insignificant event with no Significant coverage. Event appeared to have no enduring historical significance, per WP:EVENTCRIT. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure why you're nominating all these Civil War battles. All you have to do is look up the place name + date and you get results.[1] —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link you added is for a non-free book. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. According to The Union Army: Cyclopedia of battles (the non-free book - search for "Alcorn's Distillery"), the skirmish involved 100 Union soldiers. From the snippet I can view, they took 12 prisoners without a struggle; unless one of them was Robert E. Lee or Jim Beam's ancestor, this had no lasting importance. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and if cannot be expanded merge all small ones into a larger list and keep the name as a redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of any evidence that would help us determine historical significance (casualties, specific significant people involved, or even a victorious side) can be taken as evidence that this is not significant. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. ~ Rob^Talk 04:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course there are sources, here: [2] it was a battle in the most well-written-up war in history. Please remember to follow WP:BEFORE before starting an AFD, or commenting in one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply counting sources does not address notability. In all sources that I've seen (and I did look quite a bit before commenting), this skirmish has a superficial mention and has no significant coverage. A small skirmish with no effect on the war for either side is not worthy of inclusion. ~ Rob^Talk 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. that being so, Why is this at AFD? Why can't the military history Civil War editors get together have a place and hash out what's a battle and what is a subhead or alternate name for a battle?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a big conflict like the Civil War, company-sized engagements generally don't mean much or get called battles. In a smaller one like the Vietnam War, something like the (still larger battalion vs. regiment) Battle of Ong Thanh has more relative significance and coverage. A search on "smallest Civil War battle" brings up the Battle of Dranesville, which involved 9000 soldiers, so this skirmish is not even in the ballpark. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]