Talk:Chauncey H. Cooke

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Chauncey H. Cooke. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.anb.org/articles/20/20-01902-print.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-206987563.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.anb.org/articles/20/20-01902-print.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability?
I'm not generally deletionist by any stretch, but I'm struggling to see what is notable about this person: several hundred thousand men fought in the Civil War, and surely tens of thousands of them went on to become teachers. What makes this one particularly notable? From the citations, it seems perhaps more appropriate that they should be used to support a "life and motivation" section in Infantry in the American Civil War? —Luis (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The person's been mentioned in several different published books from reputable sources, so it fits the notability criterion. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk), 01:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't have time/energy to get into a notability battle, but it seems to me that the Military history project's notability guide is directly applicable. None of the nine criteria listed there apply to this person. Given that one of the multiple books is just a copy of his letters, and the others are general histories that cite to his letters specifically to show the experience of "ordinary" soldiers, "any person who ... is traceable only through primary documents is not notable" seems like the more applicable part of the guideline. —Luis (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)