Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skirmish at Alderson Ferry

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 delete. Too many of the keeps do not present an argument--"you keep doing it" is not an argument, even if true; "I googled it" is never an argument; "keep" is not an argument". Complications with dating signaled by Donner present good arguments for the lack of enduring historical significance, arguments which on one countered. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at Alderson Ferry

(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) 23:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the other Civil War skirmishes you keep nominating that I keep saying keep on. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So your measure of whether to keep or delete is based simply on the topic and the person nominating it? This alone should disqualify you from any rational discussion on Wikipedia. Could I suggest you actually read the article being nominated for deletion. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A compendium of the War of the Rebellion, Volume 1, linked to in the article, barely refers to Alderson Ferry. A historical marker plaque for Alderson's Ferry notes a small skirmish on July 12, 1862 and doesn't even mention the August 23, 1862 one cited in this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 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]
It would be a long list. Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123, p. 719 states that Dyer, 1908 divides the military actions of the Civil War into 29 campaigns, 76 battles, 310 engagements, 46 combats, 1026 actions, 29 assaults, 6,337 skirmishes, 299 operations, 26 sieges, 64 raids, 727 expeditions, 252 reconnaissances, 434 scouts, 639 affairs, 82 occupations and 79 captures. I have looked carefully at Dyer's book and I could find no explanation of how he came up with these names for the various military events of the Civil War. I think 76 is too few for battles. Many of the actions not shown as skirmishes probably would have to be thrown into a list of skirmishes to be complete. It would be a big list, even if subdivided by states, and a big job. Donner60 (talk) 07:06, 24 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 It rang a bell, so I ran a books google search on: skirmish + "Alderson Ferry". Here: [1]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Union Army; A History of Military Affairs in the Loyal States, 1861–65 — Records of the Regiments in the Union Army — Cyclopedia of Battles — Memoirs of Commanders and Soldiers. Wilmington, NC: Broadfoot Publishing, 1997. First published 1908 by Federal Publishing Company. Vol. 5, p. 24 lists a skirmish on July 12, 1862 (not August 23, 1862) at Alderson's Ferry in which two companies of Crook's cavalry killed or wounded 7 Confederates and captured 12 horses. Dyer, 1908, p. 972, lists no Union casualties at a skirmish at Alderson's Ferry on July 23, 1862 (neither July 12 or August 23). No 1862 action at Alderson's Ferry is mentioned in Cohen, Stan. The Civil War in West Virginia: A Pictorial History. Charleston, WV: Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, 1976. ISBN 978-0-933126-17-6 or Snell, Mark A. West Virginia and the Civil War: Mountaineers Are Always Free. Charleston, SC: The History Press, 2011. ISBN 978-1-59629-888-0. http://www.civilwartraveler.com/EAST/WV/MoreWV.html#Princeton mentions a "bloody" July 12, 1862 action and states that both sides used the ferry to cross the Greenbrier River and occasional fighting took place here. The July 1862 action appears to be connected to no particular campaign because of lack of significant actions in the area in that time period as shown by Dyer. Alderson's Ferry is too far south and west to have been a location in the Second Manassas Campaign and July 12, especially, would be too early a date. This can be confirmed in Hennessy, John J. Return to Bull Run: The Campaign and Battle of Second Manassas. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1993. ISBN 978-0-8061-318. The date apparently would have to be corrected to July 12 or July 23 - not sure which would is right since there is one source for each and no listing for any date for a skirmish at Alderson's Ferry is shown in Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123. Despite the fact that one source shows some casualties for a skirmish at Alderson's Ferry in July 1862, few other details can be found about the skirmish. It appears to have been a rather small, isolated skirmish connected with no campaign and of no apparent strategic or other significance with few details and no memorable occurrence to be found in the most obvious available sources. Donner60 (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:15, 27 July 2015 (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.