Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Verplanck's Point


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Verplanck's Point

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don't have access to the book that's referenced, but myrevolutionarywar.com is not a reliable source, and there are many sources describing the events around Stony Point in July 1779. Verplanck's was fired upon, apparently at distance, but it was not taken, and there does not appear to even have been any attempt to assault it (contra this article's assertion). We don't write whole articles about minor military movements; at best Robert Howe's movements merit a paragraph in Battle of Stony Point, but I don't think anything in this article is salvageable. (Consider, for instance that it states that Howe decided to besiege Stony Point. This complete and utter baloney, as readily-available accounts of the action show.  Ditto that the British at Verplanck's were "pounded into submission".)  Most of this article is just a bad rehash of the Stony Point article. Benson Lossing's account. Hugh Rankin's account.

Two versions of this article have previously been deleted (one under Battle of Verplank's Point).  Magic ♪piano 23:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 00:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - the lack of "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources indicates that it is likely non-notable under the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2011 (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.