Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Bonchurch


 * 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   Speedy keep Snowball close. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Bonchurch

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about a relatively minor battle. OpenSeven (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Battle doesn't seem to be that minor. Appears to have been significant in the context of the war it forms part of - article suggests that rsult of battle determined subsequent French actions re invasion of England/Isle of Wight. Isle of Wight generally considered part of England - battle part of campaign which is one of very few to feature uropean troops successfully landing on English soil. Also, casualty numbers, though unclear, are stated as "heavy" out of c.1000 troops engaged. Several hundred casualties seems likely. In the context of armies of the day, hardly an inconsequential number. MadScot666 (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Any particular reason why it shouldn't, OS? It was a real historical event, still known about close to half a millennium later, and the result of the battle was an important moment in history. Grutness...wha?  00:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Relatively minor battle" is a strange phrase, this was a real battle between national armies, not a fight between football hooligans.--Grahame (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia should have an article on a relatively minor battle. We aren't a paper encyclopedia, we have no need to exclude stuff that's notable but not notable "enough". As long as it really was a battle and we have encyclopedic information on it, it's fine. --Rividian (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep The nomination doesn't state that the article is in violation of any guidelines and the article is well cited to reliable sources. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia should have articles on minor battles.   Corvus cornix  talk  01:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep well-cited, meets WP:N, no problems here. In general, I think that anything that has made it to C-class is ok.-- Pie is good  (Apple is the best)  01:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep so long as we are convinced that it is a real historical battle and not a hoax with made-up references like the Upper Peninsula War. Edison (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2008 (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.