Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Alexandria, Louisiana


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Alexandria, Louisiana

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Insignificant event with no Significant coverage. Event appeared to have no enduring historical significance, per WP:EVENTCRIT. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The major source cited does not even call it a battle.Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am not concerned about whether an engagement is called a battle or something else, though I prefer "battle" in most, if not all, cases. The criteria for whether a Civil War action was a battle or something else is very loose. The type of action seems to have been a creation of Frederick Dyer in his 1908 work. Although the location may be the most important fact, I think most readers will look for the Battle of xxxxx and will not be looking for Skirmish at xxxx so I would rather see "Battle" in the title. Most, but not all, Wikipedia articles about Civil War engagements start with "Battle." In any event, skirmishing occurred around Alexandria, Louisiana in the Red River Campaign from about April 25, 1865 to May 13, 1865. Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. notes this on page 488 while making no mention of the specific engagement on April 28. The same is true of The Union Army; A History of Military Affairs in the Loyal States, 1861–65 &mdash; Records of the Regiments in the Union Army &mdash; Cyclopedia of Battles &mdash; Memoirs of Commanders and Soldiers. Wilmington, NC: Broadfoot Publishing, 1997. First published 1908 by Federal Publishing Company. Vol. 5, p. 25. Of the three sources cited in the article, only one refers to an engagement on April 28 and that involves the Confederates throwing a shell or two at the camp of an Ohio regiment, the regiment forming for battle but nothing happening as the Confederates fell back. Certainly that can not be considered a notable battle of any sort. Meanwhile, a cavalry skirmish was occurring to their front. That much is mentioned by both Dyer and Union Major General Nathaniel P. Banks in his report to General Grant of April 30, 1864, found at  in the The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies; Series 1 - Volume 34 (Part I), page 191. That still does not make it a notable engagement because not much happened between the cavalry units either. Banks said that a Confederate reconnaissance in force on April 28 led to the expectation of a battle but only some sharp skirmishing between advance cavalry units of both armies occurred. Colonel S.G. Hill's report on page 331 confirms that the infantry formed in line of battle but no battle ensued. Dyer, Frederick H. A compendium of the War of the Rebellion. Des Moines, IA: The Dyer Publishing Company, 1908.  only gives Union units engaged and casualties. He lists the 2d Illinois Cavalry Regiment, 16th Indiana Infantry Regiment (Mounted) and 6th Missouri Cavalry Regiment as the Union forces engaged and no casualties. That is all these sources report. I could find no specific mention of this skirmish in  Winters, John D. The Civil War in Louisiana. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1963. ISBN 978-0-8071-0834-5. I would characterize myself an inclusionist with respect to Civil War engagements, at least if anything of significance or even minor interest happened or resulted or if they were part of a larger campaign and several details are given in reliable sources. This is a minor 1864 engagement in which no casualties are reported and nothing much really happened. Its only significance was that it was a minor part of the Red River Campaign phase in which the Union Army was holding Alexandria and keeping the Confederates away from the river for about three weeks so that the stranded Union gunboats could be freed to move downriver. In this event, advance forces took a few shots at each other and retired. It would barely merit a sentence or two in the campaign article, which in fact it does not even have. I conclude that the event, which is barely mentioned in a few sources, is not notable enough for an article, although the skirmishing and the three-week holding action at Alexandria and its purpose should be mentioned in the campaign article. Donner60 (talk) 07:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Donner60's awesome research. Neither of the two ext. links or link to Alexandria, Louisiana at the bottom of the article mention anything about this either. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.