Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Pineberry Battery

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. Discussions about editorial decisions like merging/repurposing/restructuring can continue on the article's talk page or elsewhere, but no clear consensus for such a result has formed here. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Pineberry Battery[edit]

Battle of the Pineberry Battery (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)

This article does not demonstrate the notability of the Battle of the Pineberry Battery, with no sources other than the general's short report. The fact that the lead refers to it as "a minor inconclusive battle" does not enhance prospects for notability. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the commanding general wrote a single report about three battles at once, and the entire content of this detailed report is what is quoted at the bottom of this page (for original see here. [1]). We should just consider ourselves lucky that the creator didn't also make articles for the Battle of Willstown and the Battle of White Point, the other two in the report. (Alternative - if we can figure out what Union Campaign this expeditionary force was part of, we could perhaps merge. There may also be a place for an overview of this campaign in South Carolina in the American Civil War, which says nothing of events in the state in 1862.) Agricolae (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The US Civil War has been exhaustively studied, written about, reenacted, etc. and I'm surprised that there is a battle of this size on American soil that is not mentioned in a main article somewhere. I certainly think a redirect and merge would be the way to go. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we seem to have a bit of a hole here, as I am finding lists of more than 50 skirmishes that happened as part of the blockade of Charleston during 1862, but none of our relevant articles seem to mention these low-level engagements. An individual article is not the way to go - we can't have an article on every time a soldier fires a gun. Maybe the background section of First Battle of Charleston Harbor would could be expanded to include this periodic activity by pickets and raiding parties associated with the blockade, but describing just this one encounter in that article seems undue, while having its own page unwarranted. Agricolae (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I've updated the article a bit, although there is a lot of work left to do. I can imagine a stand alone article on the skirmish. I could also imagine an article on Grimball's plantation (Grimball's diary seems to be a well used source on life in the area at the time), with this article merged into that. I could also imagine this merged into an article on the campaign which culminated with the Battle of Secessionville. A third hypothetical destination would be something like Edisto Island, South Carolina in the Civil War. Since none of those other articles exist, I think this one should stand for now, more or less. Another option would be to merge it into the article on the USS E. B. Hale (1861). Also, this article and any hypothetical articles about the Willstown and White Point engagements should all be combined, although I don't think redirects from the Battle/skirmish/engagement at Willstown/White Point to this article really make sense. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just read the current version of the article which is a reasonable, sourced article; if such can be written then the topic is notable. As Smurphy suggests, it could be absorbed into a larger article on military actions on and around Edisto Island, but that doesn't exist. Assertion of importance in an article is a matter of personal taste; I prefer understatement. --doncram 22:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved, but the problem I have with its latest iteration is that any time the background is longer than the body, you really have to question the importance of the event being described. Even then, the body is actually not a description of one battle, but three. You could literally write the identical article as "Battle of White Point" and again as "Battle of Willstown". This all tells me that the namespace/focus is wrong, that it needs to be an article on the whole set of actions in the spring of 1862, though I am not sure what to call it, or else as a section on these actions in a higher level article. Agricolae (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I agree that the background is unbalanced. My thinking is that either this article should be renamed or that material should be moved once a destination is created. My proposed article title would be "Occupation of Edisto Island", which took place between February 11 and April 5, with a skirmish on April 19, and would include all skirmishes on the island from February until April (I count 5) and would not include this battle. The background section of this article would be paired down and it would be renamed, Engagements at Pineberry, Willtown, and White Point or possibly Battle of Pineberry Battery. The former matches the name given in Tucker 2013, as well as sources contemporaneous with the war, such as here. I'm not sure, though, so let me know what you think. Smmurphy(Talk) 01:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Full disclosure: not a theatre I know as well as some of the others, so I could be out in left field, but . . . ) I would even prefer something broader that would include both Edisto and these actions as sections. There were thousands of skirmishes of this sort, on an almost daily basis, and I just don't think they are big enough on their own (or in this case as a threesome) to merit more than a paragraph in a larger article, rather than having a stub dedicated to each. As an example, if you look at one of the big cavalry raids, there were several of these demonstrations on the flanks every day, and we don't want an article on each of them, but rather a single article on the entire raid that mentions many of the daily skirmishes. Something like Blockade of Charleston that would then briefly mention the various probes and raids and foraging contacts, as well as linking out to the major actions. That being said, if it is to be its own page, I prefer the triple-barrel name, and I prefer Engagement over Battle - I don't know where to draw the line, but there is more than just a difference in scale between what I think of as battles, Gettysburg or Shiloh or even Glorieta Pass, and what happened here. The lists I saw, admittedly not WP:RS, used terms like engagement, skirmish, incident, or action for these things, not battle (although I am sure in some of the grandiose 1880s regimental histories every one of them was listed as a battle). Agricolae (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with you, mostly. I think the most compelling aspect of the actions at Edisto Island are the relationship between those actions and the contraband colony there. The article on the Port Royal Experiment is a mess and instead of trying to squeeze this material into that article I've started a new article, Edisto Island during the Civil War. As for your point on a larger article to cover a number of different skirmishes, the article on the role of Edisto during the war seems like pretty good coverage for now. Regarding this article, I think what we now have passes the usual suspects (V, NPOV, NOR, N) and doesn't fit to be merged into the the larger article.
I know to some having an AfD result in the article being kept and a new article being written to better provide context may seem odd, but that is my !vote in this case. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on V, NPOV and NOR, but not N. Strip away all of the surrounding context, and there just isn't much there there, not what I would consider the "'Significant coverage' [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail" of the GNG. I still think it needs to be a paragraph, if that, elsewhere - that it is noteworthy but not notable (and it definitely needs renamed). Agricolae (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding notability, Tucker 2013 is titled "American Civil War: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection" and the engagement (or, the three engagements) has (have) an entire article in that volume. Generally when another encyclopedia has an article about a subject, it is considered notable. In case you are curious, the encyclopedia's editor, Spencer C. Tucker, is a respected military historian. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that argument for notability, I just don't agree with it. I am not questioning Tucker's qualifications, but an entry in a single specialist encyclopedia among more than 100,000 others doesn't convince me. I may well be in the minority here, but so be it. Agricolae (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) The Pineberry Battery article has been considerably revised since I "!vote"d, and I stay with "Keep". It refers to the new Edisto Island during the Civil War article for background. Awesome development! I appreciate the quality of discussion here including civil disagreement, in great contrast to many AFDs. --doncram 21:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, Smmurphy has developed a whole lot, and is continuing, and I think we have to defer to their judgment of how they wish to develop. Smmurphy is/was flexible, for example I see them linking from the Edisto article to the Pineberry one by pipelinked name of "Engagements at Pineberry, Willtown, and White Point", suggesting they're considering renaming the Pineberry one. Whether that was before or after they remarked above that they prefer to keep Pineberry separate, I'm not sure, but whatever they want now, the rest of us should just stand aside. I think the original AFD was okay, but the situation is far different now and it would not be reasonable to butt in and open an AFD if this was not open. --doncram 21:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing my link. I do intend to change the name of the article after the AfD, unless their is clear consensus not to (I don't like seeing non-trivial/obvious name changes during an AfD). As for the AfD, it will run its course, there is not much that can be done about it now - we've both had our !votes and made our cases and now have to wait (this is what i call the incredible lightness of editing wikipedia). In the meantime, if anybody watching this page could, I'd appreciate some help with the infobox. I like infoboxes (I know some people don't), but I'm not sure how to report "units invovles" and "strength". What I've done so far has a lot of overlap, and this seems like a complicated case; I'd appreciate some guidance or edits if there is a standard way of handling things. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 15:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surprised this was relisted, it is ready to be closed (Keep). In this edit i provided a missing signature above. --doncram 16:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - following recent work this article now seems sufficiently referenced to suggest the topic likely meets the requirements of WP:SIGCOV / WP:GNG for notability. Anotherclown (talk) 11:36, 23 April 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/Battle_of_the_Pineberry_Battery&oldid=1074237003"