Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horatio Stockton Howell

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. RL0919 (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horatio Stockton Howell[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

One of many casualties of the Battle of Gettysburg, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I think the circumstances of his story and his role in that battle are enough for me to regard this person as notable and therefore would prefer to keep this entry. Jack4576 (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Christianity, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. I don't see the notability here, but the sourcing at least gives me some pause against being fully for deletion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. His actual role in the battle was minimal. That there's sourcing for almost anyone who was at Gettysburg isn't surprising given the level of documentation that exists, but I'm not seeing anything notable here. Intothat darkness 19:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not an ordinary solider, but the only chaplain killed at Gettysburg. "There can be no discussion of military chaplaincy at Gettysburg without mention of Horatio Stockton Howell." St Anselm (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the references we have on him are very recent: the quote I give is from this year; there is a page devoted to him in this 2020 book. St Anselm (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just FYI, the quoted author Bruce Davis heads the Gettysburg Civil War roundtable, so he's an expert. BusterD (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on a quick google search. I've applied three marginal sources already. I'm seeing material like this which seems to indicate this person is a part of Gettysburg lore, being a chaplain who was shot for refusing to surrender his sword. This book about Union chaplains seems to indicate Howell's death is the "most famous" of six Union chaplains mistakenly killed as combatants. There's a heck of a lot of Gettysburg lore, I'll grant, not all of it warranting notability. Looking at newspapers.com I'm seeing over three dozen Pennsylvania mentions over the years (including a few claimed eyewitnesses). This book says of his commemoration “...the first battlefield monument to perpetuate the memory of a chaplain slain in battle...”. Gettysburg figures are notoriously hard to kill at AfD, so to speak. BusterD (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The scope and breadth of sources about Howell that are already in the article establish the claim of notability based on his life's work and death at Gettysburg. Alansohn (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable book and newspaper sources in the article that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, passing minor references insufficient to establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant coverage such as several paragraphs here imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Gettysburg Times is a regional newspaper printed since 1902 so seems to be a reliable source, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2023 (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.